Step 4 Review - Case 56

Step 4: Synthesis Review

Case 56: Unlicensed Practice by Nonengineers with “Engineer” in Job Titles

Back to Step 4

131

Entities

5

Provisions

14

Questions

7

Conclusions

Stalemate

Transformation

Stalemate Competing obligations remain in tension without clear resolution

Full Entity Graph

Context: 0 Normative: 0 Temporal: 0 Synthesis: 0

Filter:

Layout:

Hide unconnected

Entity Types

Synthesis Reasoning Flow

Shows how NSPE provisions inform questions and conclusions - the board's reasoning chain

Show Labels

Node Types & Relationships

Nodes:

■ NSPE Provisions ◆ Questions ▬ Conclusions ▬ Entities (labels)

Edge Colors:

→ Provision informs Question
→ Question answered by Conclusion
→ Provision applies to Entity

NSPE Code Provisions Referenced

View Extraction

II.1.f. II.1.f.

Full Text:

Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities, and cooperate with the proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required.

Relevant Case Excerpts:

From discussion:
"Per Section II.1.e, Engineer A “shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering…” and is obligated to report Engineer B’s violation to appropriate professional bodies (Section II.1.f)."
Confidence: 90.0%

Applies To:

role Engineer A

This provision governs Engineer A's duty to report Transportation Engineer B's unlicensed practice

state EngineerA_UnlicensedPracticeDiscovery_TransportationEngineerB

This provision addresses the state where Engineer A discovered unlicensed practice

state EngineerA_ReportingObligationTriggered_CurrentCase

This provision directly relates to the state where Engineer A's reporting obligation is triggered

obligation EngineerA_ReportingUnlicensedPractice

This provision specifies Engineer A's obligation to report unlicensed practice

obligation EngineerA_Report_UnlawfulPractice

This provision creates the obligation for Engineer A to report unlawful practice

capability EngineerA_Reporting_Obligation

This provision requires Engineer A's capability to fulfill reporting obligations

III.8.a. III.8.a.

Full Text:

Engineers shall conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering.

Applies To:

role Engineer A

This provision governs Engineer A's duty to ensure compliance with state registration laws

role Transportation Engineer B

This provision governs Transportation Engineer B's requirement to comply with registration laws

state TransportationEngineerB_UnlicensedPractice

This provision directly addresses the state of practicing without proper registration

resource State_Engineering_Practice_Laws

This provision requires conformance with state engineering practice laws

resource State_Licensing_Act_Generic

This provision references state licensing act requirements

principle Regulatory_CaseA_Practice

This provision embodies the principle of regulatory compliance in engineering practice

obligation TransportationEngineerB_LegalCompliance

This provision specifies Transportation Engineer B's obligation for legal compliance

constraint State_Engineering_Practice_Boundary

This provision relates to the constraint of state engineering practice boundaries

constraint PE_License_Requirement

This provision creates the constraint requiring PE licensure

capability PE_Regulatory_Compliance

This provision requires the capability for regulatory compliance

I.1. I.1.

Full Text:

Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.

Applies To:

role Engineer A

This provision governs Engineer A's duty to ensure public safety through proper oversight of engineering work

principle PublicWelfare_CaseA_Oversight

This provision embodies the principle of maintaining public welfare through proper engineering oversight

principle PublicSafety_Licensing_Discussion

This provision relates to the principle that licensing requirements exist to protect public safety

principle PublicWelfare_Endangerment_Discussion

This provision addresses the principle concerning potential endangerment of public welfare through unlicensed practice

obligation All_PEs_Public_Safety

This provision specifies the fundamental obligation of all PEs to prioritize public safety

II.1.e. II.1.e.

Full Text:

Engineers shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering by a person or firm.

Relevant Case Excerpts:

Applies To:

role Engineer A

This provision governs Engineer A's conduct regarding not enabling unlicensed practice by Transportation Engineer B

state EngineerA_UnlawfulPracticeEnablement_CurrentCase

This provision directly addresses the state where Engineer A may be enabling unlawful practice

state TransportationEngineerB_UnlicensedPractice

This provision relates to the state of Transportation Engineer B's unlicensed practice

obligation EngineerA_Not_Aid_UnlawfulPractice

This provision specifies Engineer A's obligation not to aid unlawful practice

constraint No_Aiding_Unlawful_Practice

This provision creates the constraint against aiding unlawful engineering practice

II.5.a. II.5.a.

Full Text:

Engineers shall not falsify their qualifications or permit misrepresentation of their or their associates' qualifications. They shall not misrepresent or exaggerate their responsibility in or for the subject matter of prior assignments. Brochures or other presentations incident to the solicitation of employment shall not misrepresent pertinent facts concerning employers, employees, associates, joint venturers, or past accomplishments.

Applies To:

role Transportation Engineer B

This provision governs Transportation Engineer B's misrepresentation of qualifications through title usage

role Engineer B

This provision governs Engineer B's title misrepresentation

role State Agency

This provision relates to State Agency's role in permitting misrepresentation through title assignment

state StateAgency_MisleadingTitleAssignment

This provision addresses the state where misleading titles are assigned

state EngineerB_TitleMisrepresentation_CurrentCase

This provision directly addresses Engineer B's title misrepresentation

state EI_TitleMisrepresentation_BER92-2

This provision relates to the EI title misrepresentation case

state ENGCO_TitleMisrepresentation_BER95-10

This provision relates to ENGCO's title misrepresentation case

principle Integrity_CaseA_Title

This provision embodies the principle of integrity in title usage

principle Transparency_Title_Discussion

This provision relates to the principle of transparency in professional titles

obligation StateAgency_TitleAccuracy

This provision relates to the obligation for accurate title assignment

obligation EngineerB_Title_Accuracy

This provision specifies Engineer B's obligation for title accuracy

obligation ENGCO_Personnel_Title_Accuracy

This provision relates to ENGCO's obligation for personnel title accuracy

constraint No_Misrepresentation_Boundary

This provision creates the constraint against misrepresentation

constraint Engineer_Title_Usage_Restriction

This provision relates to restrictions on engineer title usage

action Staff Title Assignment

This provision governs the action of assigning staff titles

Questions & Conclusions

View Extraction

Linked View Side-by-Side

Each question is shown with its corresponding conclusion(s). This reveals the board's reasoning flow.

Question 1 Board Question

If “Transportation Engineer” B is practicing engineering, does Engineer A have an obligation to report “Transportation Engineer” B for the unlicensed practice?

Involves: Engineer A

Board's Conclusion

Conclusion 3 Analytical

The Board's focus on Transportation Engineer B's lack of qualifications should be extended to consider Engineer A's complicity in perpetuating an unlawful system. By continuing to submit sealed documents for review by someone known to lack proper qualifications, Engineer A potentially violates the prohibition against aiding unlawful practice, even if the immediate harm appears minimal. This creates a professional duty conflict between maintaining project continuity and upholding licensing integrity.

Cites: II.1.e.

Question 2 Board Question

Is it ethical for “Transportation Engineer” B to engage in the practice of engineering when “Transportation Engineer” B is not qualified for licensure based on education, examination, and experience?

Board's Conclusion

Conclusion 1 Board Conclusion

It is unlawful and therefore not ethical for “Transportation Engineer” B to engage in the practice of engineering without having fulfilled the requirements for licensure: adequate education, rigorous examination, and substantial experience.

Question 3 Implicit

II.5.a

What ethical obligations does the State Agency have in ensuring that personnel with engineering titles are actually qualified to perform engineering functions?

Involves: State Agency StateAgency_TitleAccuracy StateAgency_QualificationVerification

Analysis

Conclusion 2 Analytical

Beyond the Board's finding that Transportation Engineer B's unlicensed practice is unethical, the case reveals a systemic institutional failure where the State Agency has created a regulatory paradox - the very entity responsible for ensuring engineering compliance has itself violated title restrictions and practice boundaries. This creates a particularly egregious form of unlicensed practice because it occurs within the regulatory framework meant to prevent such violations, potentially undermining public trust in the entire licensing system.

Cites: II.1.e. III.8.a.

Conclusion 4 Response

Addressing the implicit question about state agency obligations (Q101), the State Agency bears significant ethical responsibility for systematically misrepresenting personnel qualifications through misleading titles. While the agency may not be directly bound by NSPE codes, it has created conditions that force licensed engineers into ethical dilemmas and potentially compromise public safety. The agency's assignment of engineering titles to unqualified personnel violates the fundamental principle that engineering oversight should be performed by qualified professionals.

Cites: I.1. II.5.a.

Question 4 Implicit

II.1.e

Should Engineer A bear any ethical responsibility for continuing to submit documents for review by someone they know lacks proper qualifications?

Involves: Engineer A EngineerA_Not_Aid_UnlawfulPractice EngineerA_UnlawfulPracticeEnablement_CurrentCase

Analysis

Conclusion 3 Analytical

Cites: II.1.e.

Question 5 Implicit

I.1

What are the broader implications for public safety when government agencies systematically assign engineering titles to unqualified personnel?

Involves: PublicSafety_Licensing_Discussion PublicWelfare_Endangerment_Discussion StateAgency_MisleadingTitleAssignment

Analysis

Conclusion 2 Analytical

Cites: II.1.e. III.8.a.

Question 6 Principle Tension

I.1 II.1.e

How should Engineer A balance the principle of Competence_CaseA_Review against PublicWelfare_CaseA_Oversight when the reviewing authority lacks proper qualifications?

Involves: Competence_CaseA_Review PublicWelfare_CaseA_Oversight Engineer A

Analysis

Conclusion 6 Synthesis

The case demonstrates a complex tension between Competence_CaseA_Review and PublicWelfare_CaseA_Oversight that was resolved by prioritizing regulatory compliance over administrative efficiency. The Board implicitly recognized that competent review cannot exist without proper qualifications, and that public welfare is ultimately served by maintaining licensing integrity even when it creates administrative inconvenience. This synthesis establishes that competence requirements are not merely bureaucratic formalities but essential safeguards for public protection.

Cites: I.1. III.8.a.

Question 7 Principle Tension

II.5.a III.8.a

Does the principle of Integrity_CaseA_Title conflict with Regulatory_CaseA_Practice when government agencies themselves violate title restrictions?

Involves: Integrity_CaseA_Title Regulatory_CaseA_Practice State Agency

Analysis

Conclusion 7 Synthesis

The interaction between Integrity_CaseA_Title and Transparency_Title_Discussion reveals that professional integrity requires not just avoiding false claims about one's own qualifications, but also refusing to participate in systems that systematically misrepresent professional credentials. The case teaches that title accuracy is not merely about individual honesty but about maintaining the credibility of professional designations that the public relies upon for safety assurance.

Cites: II.5.a.

Question 8 Principle Tension

II.5.a

How does Transparency_Title_Discussion tension with Competence_Supervision_Discussion when unqualified personnel supervise qualified engineers' work?

Involves: Transparency_Title_Discussion Competence_Supervision_Discussion Transportation Engineer B Engineer A

Analysis

Conclusion 7 Synthesis

Cites: II.5.a.

Question 9 Theoretical

III.8.a

From a deontological perspective, did Transportation Engineer B violate their categorical duty by accepting engineering responsibilities without proper qualifications?

Involves: Transportation Engineer B TransportationEngineerB_UnlicensedPractice TransportationEngineerB_LegalCompliance

Analysis

Conclusion 5 Response

From a deontological perspective (Q301), Transportation Engineer B violated the categorical duty of professional honesty by accepting and performing engineering functions while lacking the requisite qualifications. This violation is particularly severe because it involves a systematic deception rather than a single instance of misrepresentation. The duty to refuse work beyond one's competence is absolute and cannot be justified by administrative convenience or institutional pressure.

Cites: II.5.a. III.8.a.

Question 10 Theoretical

II.1.f I.1

From a consequentialist perspective, do the potential negative outcomes of unlicensed practice justify Engineer A's reporting obligation despite possible disruption to public projects?

Involves: Engineer A EngineerA_ReportingUnlicensedPractice PublicWelfare_Endangerment_Discussion

Analysis

Analysis pending - insufficient information in case to address this question.

Question 11 Theoretical

II.1.f

From a virtue ethics perspective, what professional virtues should guide Engineer A's response to discovering systemic unlicensed practice in government oversight?

Involves: Engineer A Integrity_Profession_Discussion EngineerA_UnlicensedPracticeDiscovery_TransportationEngineerB

Analysis

Analysis pending - insufficient information in case to address this question.

Question 12 Counterfactual

II.5.a

Would Engineer A's ethical obligations differ if Transportation Engineer B had disclosed their lack of qualifications upfront?

Involves: Engineer A Transportation Engineer B Transparency_Title_Discussion EngineerB_TitleMisrepresentation_CurrentCase

Analysis

Analysis pending - insufficient information in case to address this question.

Question 13 Counterfactual

III.8.a

What if the State Agency had proper licensed engineers available but chose to assign review duties to Transportation Engineer B for administrative convenience?

Involves: State Agency Transportation Engineer B Design_Document_Review_Authority Staff Title Assignment

Analysis

Analysis pending - insufficient information in case to address this question.

Question 14 Counterfactual

III.8.a

How would the ethical analysis change if Transportation Engineer B was working under the direct supervision of a licensed PE who was ultimately responsible for the reviews?

Involves: Transportation Engineer B Direct_Supervision_Requirement Licensed_PE_Responsible_Charge

Analysis

Analysis pending - insufficient information in case to address this question.

Question	Conclusion
Question 1 Board Question If “Transportation Engineer” B is practicing engineering, does Engineer A have an obligation to report “Transportation Engineer” B for the unlicensed practice?	Conclusion 3 Analytical The Board's focus on Transportation Engineer B's lack of qualifications should be extended to consider Engineer A's complicity in perpetuating an unlawful system. By continuing to submit sealed documents for review by someone known to lack proper qualifications, Engineer A potentially violates the prohibition against aiding unlawful practice, even if the immediate harm appears minimal. This creates a professional duty conflict between maintaining project continuity and upholding licensing integrity.
Question 2 Board Question Is it ethical for “Transportation Engineer” B to engage in the practice of engineering when “Transportation Engineer” B is not qualified for licensure based on education, examination, and experience?	Conclusion 1 Board Conclusion It is unlawful and therefore not ethical for “Transportation Engineer” B to engage in the practice of engineering without having fulfilled the requirements for licensure: adequate education, rigorous examination, and substantial experience.
Question 3 Implicit What ethical obligations does the State Agency have in ensuring that personnel with engineering titles are actually qualified to perform engineering functions?	Conclusion 2 Analytical Beyond the Board's finding that Transportation Engineer B's unlicensed practice is unethical, the case reveals a systemic institutional failure where the State Agency has created a regulatory paradox - the very entity responsible for ensuring engineering compliance has itself violated title restrictions and practice boundaries. This creates a particularly egregious form of unlicensed practice because it occurs within the regulatory framework meant to prevent such violations, potentially undermining public trust in the entire licensing system. Conclusion 4 Response Addressing the implicit question about state agency obligations (Q101), the State Agency bears significant ethical responsibility for systematically misrepresenting personnel qualifications through misleading titles. While the agency may not be directly bound by NSPE codes, it has created conditions that force licensed engineers into ethical dilemmas and potentially compromise public safety. The agency's assignment of engineering titles to unqualified personnel violates the fundamental principle that engineering oversight should be performed by qualified professionals.
Question 4 Implicit Should Engineer A bear any ethical responsibility for continuing to submit documents for review by someone they know lacks proper qualifications?	Conclusion 3 Analytical The Board's focus on Transportation Engineer B's lack of qualifications should be extended to consider Engineer A's complicity in perpetuating an unlawful system. By continuing to submit sealed documents for review by someone known to lack proper qualifications, Engineer A potentially violates the prohibition against aiding unlawful practice, even if the immediate harm appears minimal. This creates a professional duty conflict between maintaining project continuity and upholding licensing integrity.
Question 5 Implicit What are the broader implications for public safety when government agencies systematically assign engineering titles to unqualified personnel?	Conclusion 2 Analytical Beyond the Board's finding that Transportation Engineer B's unlicensed practice is unethical, the case reveals a systemic institutional failure where the State Agency has created a regulatory paradox - the very entity responsible for ensuring engineering compliance has itself violated title restrictions and practice boundaries. This creates a particularly egregious form of unlicensed practice because it occurs within the regulatory framework meant to prevent such violations, potentially undermining public trust in the entire licensing system.
Question 6 Principle Tension How should Engineer A balance the principle of Competence_CaseA_Review against PublicWelfare_CaseA_Oversight when the reviewing authority lacks proper qualifications?	Conclusion 6 Synthesis The case demonstrates a complex tension between Competence_CaseA_Review and PublicWelfare_CaseA_Oversight that was resolved by prioritizing regulatory compliance over administrative efficiency. The Board implicitly recognized that competent review cannot exist without proper qualifications, and that public welfare is ultimately served by maintaining licensing integrity even when it creates administrative inconvenience. This synthesis establishes that competence requirements are not merely bureaucratic formalities but essential safeguards for public protection.
Question 7 Principle Tension Does the principle of Integrity_CaseA_Title conflict with Regulatory_CaseA_Practice when government agencies themselves violate title restrictions?	Conclusion 7 Synthesis The interaction between Integrity_CaseA_Title and Transparency_Title_Discussion reveals that professional integrity requires not just avoiding false claims about one's own qualifications, but also refusing to participate in systems that systematically misrepresent professional credentials. The case teaches that title accuracy is not merely about individual honesty but about maintaining the credibility of professional designations that the public relies upon for safety assurance.
Question 8 Principle Tension How does Transparency_Title_Discussion tension with Competence_Supervision_Discussion when unqualified personnel supervise qualified engineers' work?	Conclusion 7 Synthesis The interaction between Integrity_CaseA_Title and Transparency_Title_Discussion reveals that professional integrity requires not just avoiding false claims about one's own qualifications, but also refusing to participate in systems that systematically misrepresent professional credentials. The case teaches that title accuracy is not merely about individual honesty but about maintaining the credibility of professional designations that the public relies upon for safety assurance.
Question 9 Theoretical From a deontological perspective, did Transportation Engineer B violate their categorical duty by accepting engineering responsibilities without proper qualifications?	Conclusion 5 Response From a deontological perspective (Q301), Transportation Engineer B violated the categorical duty of professional honesty by accepting and performing engineering functions while lacking the requisite qualifications. This violation is particularly severe because it involves a systematic deception rather than a single instance of misrepresentation. The duty to refuse work beyond one's competence is absolute and cannot be justified by administrative convenience or institutional pressure.
Question 10 Theoretical From a consequentialist perspective, do the potential negative outcomes of unlicensed practice justify Engineer A's reporting obligation despite possible disruption to public projects?	Insufficient information
Question 11 Theoretical From a virtue ethics perspective, what professional virtues should guide Engineer A's response to discovering systemic unlicensed practice in government oversight?	Insufficient information
Question 12 Counterfactual Would Engineer A's ethical obligations differ if Transportation Engineer B had disclosed their lack of qualifications upfront?	Insufficient information
Question 13 Counterfactual What if the State Agency had proper licensed engineers available but chose to assign review duties to Transportation Engineer B for administrative convenience?	Insufficient information
Question 14 Counterfactual How would the ethical analysis change if Transportation Engineer B was working under the direct supervision of a licensed PE who was ultimately responsible for the reviews?	Insufficient information

Rich Analysis Results

View Extraction

Causal-Normative Links 3

Document Submission Decision

Fulfills

Qualification Verification Obligation
EngineerA_ResponsibleCharge

Violates None

Document Review Decision

Fulfills

Qualification Verification Obligation
StateAgency_QualificationVerification

Violates

TransportationEngineerB_LegalCompliance

Staff Title Assignment

Fulfills None

Violates

Title Accuracy Obligation
StateAgency_TitleAccuracy
EngineerB_Title_Accuracy
ENGCO_Personnel_Title_Accuracy

Question Emergence 14

Triggering Events

Qualification Discovery
Staff Title Assignment

Triggering Actions

Document Review Decision
Document Submission Decision

Competing Warrants

Title Accuracy Obligation TransportationEngineerB_LegalCompliance
Qualification Verification Obligation Supervision Obligation

Triggering Events

Qualification Discovery

Triggering Actions

Staff Title Assignment
Document Review Decision

Competing Warrants

EngineerA_Report_UnlawfulPractice EngineerA_ResponsibleCharge
EngineerA_ReportingUnlicensedPractice Supervision Obligation

Triggering Events

Qualification Discovery

Triggering Actions

Staff Title Assignment
Document Review Decision

Competing Warrants

Title Accuracy Obligation Qualification Verification Obligation
StateAgency_TitleAccuracy StateAgency_QualificationVerification

Triggering Events

Qualification Discovery

Triggering Actions

Document Submission Decision

Competing Warrants

EngineerA_Not_Aid_UnlawfulPractice Qualification Verification Obligation
EngineerA_Report_UnlawfulPractice EngineerA_ResponsibleCharge

Triggering Events

Qualification Discovery

Triggering Actions

Staff Title Assignment

Competing Warrants

Title Accuracy Obligation Qualification Verification Obligation
StateAgency_TitleAccuracy All_PEs_Public_Safety

Triggering Events

Qualification Discovery
Document Review Completion

Triggering Actions

Document Submission Decision
Document Review Decision

Competing Warrants

Qualification Verification Obligation All_PEs_Public_Safety
EngineerA_ResponsibleCharge EngineerA_Not_Aid_UnlawfulPractice

Triggering Events

Staff Title Assignment

Triggering Actions

Document Review Decision

Competing Warrants

Title Accuracy Obligation StateAgency_TitleAccuracy
Qualification Verification Obligation StateAgency_QualificationVerification

Triggering Events

Staff Title Assignment
Qualification Discovery

Triggering Actions

Document Review Decision
Document Submission Decision

Competing Warrants

Title Accuracy Obligation Supervision Obligation
EngineerB_Title_Accuracy EngineerA_ResponsibleCharge

Triggering Events

Staff Title Assignment
Document Review Decision

Triggering Actions

Document Review Completion
Document Submission Decision

Competing Warrants

Title Accuracy Obligation TransportationEngineerB_LegalCompliance
Qualification Verification Obligation EngineerB_Title_Accuracy

Triggering Events

Qualification Discovery

Triggering Actions

Document Review Decision
Staff Title Assignment

Competing Warrants

EngineerA_Report_UnlawfulPractice All_PEs_Public_Safety
Qualification Verification Obligation Supervision Obligation

Triggering Events

Qualification Discovery

Triggering Actions

Document Review Decision
Staff Title Assignment

Competing Warrants

EngineerA_Report_UnlawfulPractice EngineerA_ResponsibleCharge
Qualification Verification Obligation All_PEs_Public_Safety

Triggering Events

Qualification Discovery
Staff Title Assignment

Triggering Actions

Document Review Decision
Document Submission Decision

Competing Warrants

EngineerA_Not_Aid_UnlawfulPractice Supervision Obligation
EngineerA_Report_UnlawfulPractice Qualification Verification Obligation

Triggering Events

Document Review Decision
Staff Title Assignment

Triggering Actions

Document Review Decision

Competing Warrants

Qualification Verification Obligation StateAgency_QualificationVerification
Title Accuracy Obligation StateAgency_TitleAccuracy

Triggering Events

Qualification Discovery
Document Review Decision

Triggering Actions

Staff Title Assignment
Document Review Completion

Competing Warrants

Supervision Obligation Qualification Verification Obligation
EngineerA_ResponsibleCharge All_PEs_Public_Safety

Resolution Patterns 7

Determinative Principles

Categorical duty of professional honesty
Absolute duty to refuse work beyond competence
Systematic vs. isolated violations
Deontological ethics

Determinative Facts

Transportation Engineer B accepted engineering functions without qualifications
This represents systematic deception
Administrative convenience was prioritized over competence
Institutional pressure influenced the decision

Determinative Principles

Professional integrity beyond individual honesty
Systemic responsibility for credential accuracy
Public reliance on professional designations
Title accuracy for safety assurance

Determinative Facts

Systematic misrepresentation of professional credentials
Public relies on professional titles for safety
Individual participation in misleading systems
Professional designations carry public trust

Determinative Principles

Legal compliance as ethical foundation
Professional qualification requirements
Categorical duty to practice only within competence

Determinative Facts

Transportation Engineer B lacks adequate education for licensure
Transportation Engineer B has not passed rigorous examination
Transportation Engineer B lacks substantial experience
Transportation Engineer B is performing engineering functions

Determinative Principles

Institutional integrity
Public trust in regulatory systems
Systemic vs. individual violations
Regulatory consistency

Determinative Facts

State Agency assigned engineering title to unqualified person
State Agency is responsible for engineering compliance
This creates a regulatory paradox
The violation occurs within the regulatory framework

Determinative Principles

Prohibition against aiding unlawful practice
Professional duty conflicts
Licensing integrity vs. project continuity
Knowledge-based responsibility

Determinative Facts

Engineer A knows Transportation Engineer B lacks qualifications
Engineer A continues submitting documents for review
This perpetuates the unlawful system
Creates conflict between project needs and licensing integrity

Determinative Principles

Institutional ethical responsibility
Systematic misrepresentation
Public safety through qualified oversight
Creating ethical dilemmas for others

Determinative Facts

State Agency systematically misrepresents qualifications
Agency forces licensed engineers into ethical dilemmas
Engineering oversight performed by unqualified personnel
Potential compromise to public safety

Determinative Principles

Competence as prerequisite for review
Public welfare through licensing integrity
Regulatory compliance over administrative efficiency
Competence requirements as safety safeguards

Determinative Facts

Tension between competent review and oversight needs
Administrative efficiency conflicts with qualification requirements
Licensing integrity serves public welfare
Competence requirements protect public safety

Loading entity-grounded arguments...

Decision Points

View Extraction

Legend: PRO CON | N% = Validation Score

DP1 Engineer A's obligation to verify qualifications and report unlicensed practice by Transportation Engineer B

Should Engineer A report Transportation Engineer B for unlicensed practice of engineering?

Options:

Report Transportation Engineer B to appropriate professional bodies for unlicensed practice
Continue current arrangement without reporting unlicensed practice

Arguments:

A1 Score: 40%

Engineer A should report Transportation Engineer B for unlicensed practice

Because Qualification Verification Obligation requires this action

A2 Score: 60%

Engineer A should NOT report Transportation Engineer B for unlicensed practice

Because excessive verification may undermine trust relationships

A3 Score: 60%

Engineer A should continue submitting documents while seeking alternative review arrangements

Because this promotes Alternative Approach

A4 Score: 60%

Engineer A should NOT continue submitting documents while seeking alternative review arrangements

Because excessive verification may undermine trust relationships

A5 Score: 60%

Engineer A should refuse to submit documents until qualified reviewer is assigned

Because Qualification Verification Obligation requires this action

A6 Score: 60%

Engineer A should NOT refuse to submit documents until qualified reviewer is assigned

Because excessive verification may undermine trust relationships

90% aligned

DP2 Engineer A's responsibility when knowingly submitting documents for review by unqualified personnel

Should Engineer A continue submitting sealed documents for review by Transportation Engineer B knowing they lack proper qualifications?

Options:

Refuse to submit documents until qualified reviewer is assigned
Continue submitting documents to maintain project schedule

Arguments:

A7 Score: 60%

State Agency should conduct the Reassign engineering review duties to properly licensed personnel

Because StateAgency QualificationVerification requires this action

A8 Score: 60%

State Agency should NOT conduct the Reassign engineering review duties to properly licensed personnel

Because excessive verification may undermine trust relationships

A9 Score: 40%

State Agency should continue current assignment for administrative convenience

Because this promotes Professional Judgment

A10 Score: 60%

State Agency should NOT continue current assignment for administrative convenience

Because excessive verification may undermine trust relationships

85% aligned

DP3 State Agency's obligation to ensure personnel with engineering titles possess proper qualifications

Should the State Agency verify qualifications before assigning engineering titles and responsibilities?

Options:

Verify qualifications before assigning engineering titles and responsibilities
Continue current title assignment practices for administrative convenience

Arguments:

A13 Score: 40%

Transportation Engineer B should continue performing assigned engineering functions

Because this promotes Professional Judgment

A11 Score: 100%

Transportation Engineer B should decline engineering responsibilities until properly qualified

Because Legal Compliance and Title Accuracy requires this action

A12 Score: 60%

Transportation Engineer B should NOT decline engineering responsibilities until properly qualified

Because this may not fully serve public safety

A14 Score: 60%

Transportation Engineer B should NOT continue performing assigned engineering functions

Because this may not fully serve public safety

80% aligned

DP4 Transportation Engineer B's acceptance of engineering responsibilities without proper qualifications

Should Transportation Engineer B accept and perform engineering review functions without meeting licensure requirements?

Options:

Refuse engineering responsibilities until proper qualifications are obtained
Continue performing assigned engineering functions despite qualification deficiencies

Arguments:

A15 Score: 60%

Engineer A should require direct licensed PE supervision for all reviews

Because this promotes Professional Judgment

A16 Score: 60%

Engineer A should NOT require direct licensed PE supervision for all reviews

Because competing professional interests may be affected

A17 Score: 80%

Engineer A should maintain individual qualification requirements regardless of supervision

Because Supervision Obligation requires this action

A18 Score: 60%

Engineer A should NOT maintain individual qualification requirements regardless of supervision

Because this may reduce necessary human judgment and oversight

85% aligned

DP5 Balancing public safety obligations when supervision arrangements are inadequate

How should public safety concerns be prioritized when unqualified personnel perform engineering oversight without adequate supervision?

Options:

Prioritize qualified oversight even if it disrupts administrative processes
Accept current supervision arrangements to maintain project continuity

75% aligned

Case Narrative

Phase 4 narrative construction results for Case 56

Characters

Events

Conflicts

Fluents

Opening Context

You are a licensed professional engineer who has just uncovered troubling evidence that a colleague in your transportation engineering firm may be practicing without proper licensure while using a misleading professional title. As you review project documentation and organizational charts, the scope of potential regulatory violations becomes increasingly clear, placing you at the center of a complex ethical situation that could impact both professional relationships and public safety. The weight of your professional obligations now demands careful consideration of how to address these serious licensing irregularities within your organization.

From the perspective of Engineer A

Characters (8)

State Agency Stakeholder

Government regulatory body responsible for overseeing professional engineering licensing and ensuring compliance with state laws regarding engineering practice and professional titles.

Ethical Stance: Guided by: Regulatory Compliance, Professional Gatekeeping, Competence_CaseA_Review

Motivations:

To protect public safety and maintain professional standards by enforcing licensing requirements and preventing unauthorized practice of engineering.

non-degreed personnel Stakeholder

Employees or contractors working in engineering-related capacities without formal engineering degrees or professional licensing credentials.

Motivations:

To perform their assigned technical work effectively while staying within the legal boundaries of their qualifications and avoiding unauthorized practice.

the firm Stakeholder

Engineering consulting company or organization that employs both licensed engineers and technical staff to provide engineering services to clients.

Motivations:

To deliver quality engineering services profitably while maintaining compliance with professional licensing laws and protecting the company's reputation and legal standing.

Engineer A Protagonist

Licensed professional engineer who has identified potential violations of professional practice standards or licensing requirements within their organization or industry.

Motivations:

To uphold professional ethics and public safety by reporting unlicensed practice while balancing loyalty to their employer and professional obligations.

"Transportation Engineer" B Stakeholder

Engineer B Stakeholder

EI Stakeholder

ENGCO Stakeholder

Ethical Tensions (5)

Engineer A has a duty to report unlicensed practice but also has supervision obligations that may require working with or overseeing unlicensed practitioners. Reporting could undermine the supervision relationship and workflow. LLM

EngineerA_ReportingUnlicensedPractice Supervision Obligation

Obligation vs Obligation

Affects: Engineer A Unlicensed Engineering Practitioner the firm

Moral Intensity (Jones 1991):

Magnitude: high Probability: high immediate direct concentrated

Engineer B (who appears to be unlicensed based on quotes around 'Transportation Engineer') has an obligation for title accuracy but is constrained from using engineering titles without proper licensure, creating a fundamental conflict about professional identity. LLM

EngineerB_Title_Accuracy Engineer_Title_Usage_Restriction

Obligation vs Constraint

Affects: Transportation Engineer B State Agency the firm

Moral Intensity (Jones 1991):

Magnitude: high Probability: high immediate direct concentrated

Engineer A must maintain responsible charge over engineering work but is constrained by direct supervision requirements that may limit the scope of work that can be properly overseen, especially with multiple unlicensed practitioners. LLM

EngineerA_ResponsibleCharge Direct_Supervision_Requirement

Obligation vs Constraint

Affects: Engineer A non-degreed personnel Engineer Intern the firm

Moral Intensity (Jones 1991):

Magnitude: high Probability: medium near-term direct diffuse

The obligation to protect public safety may require working with available personnel (including unlicensed practitioners) to complete critical transportation projects, but this conflicts with the duty not to aid unlawful practice of engineering. LLM

All_PEs_Public_Safety EngineerA_Not_Aid_UnlawfulPractice

Obligation vs Obligation

Affects: Engineer A Transportation Engineer B Unlicensed Engineering Practitioner State Agency

Moral Intensity (Jones 1991):

Magnitude: high Probability: medium long-term indirect diffuse

The firm has obligations for personnel title accuracy but faces constraints against misrepresentation, creating tension when unlicensed staff perform engineering functions but cannot be accurately titled as engineers. LLM

ENGCO_Personnel_Title_Accuracy No_Misrepresentation_Boundary

Obligation vs Constraint

Affects: the firm Transportation Engineer B non-degreed personnel State Agency

Moral Intensity (Jones 1991):

Magnitude: medium Probability: high immediate direct concentrated

States (10)

Unlicensed Practice Discovery State Misleading Title Assignment State EngineerA_UnlicensedPracticeDiscovery_TransportationEngineerB TransportationEngineerB_UnlicensedPractice StateAgency_MisleadingTitleAssignment Title Misrepresentation State Unlawful Practice Enablement State Reporting Obligation Triggered State EngineerB_TitleMisrepresentation_CurrentCase EngineerA_UnlawfulPracticeEnablement_CurrentCase

Event Timeline (13)

#	Event	Type
1	The case begins when Engineer A discovers that an individual is practicing engineering without proper licensure while using a misleading professional title. This discovery sets the stage for a complex ethical dilemma involving professional responsibility and regulatory compliance.	state
2	A critical decision point emerges regarding whether to submit engineering documents for official review or approval. This decision carries significant implications for project integrity and professional accountability.	action
3	The formal review process for submitted engineering documents begins, establishing a chain of professional oversight. This step introduces additional stakeholders and potential scrutiny of the work quality and authorship.	action
4	An unlicensed individual is assigned or assumes a professional engineering title within the organization's staff structure. This assignment creates a direct conflict with professional licensing requirements and ethical standards.	action
5	The document review process concludes, potentially revealing discrepancies between the work quality and the stated qualifications of those involved. This completion marks a turning point where ethical concerns become more concrete and actionable.	automatic
6	The true professional qualifications and licensing status of key personnel are discovered or verified. This revelation confirms suspicions about unlicensed practice and forces a decision about appropriate response measures.	automatic
7	Engineer A faces a fundamental ethical conflict between the professional duty to report unlicensed practice and existing supervisory obligations. This tension highlights the complexity of workplace relationships when ethical violations are discovered.	automatic
8	The unlicensed individual (Engineer B) confronts their own ethical obligations regarding truthful representation of qualifications and professional status. This creates a secondary conflict about personal integrity versus potential career consequences.	automatic
9	Should Engineer A continue submitting documents for review by Transportation Engineer B after discovering their lack of proper qualifications?	decision
10	Should the State Agency continue assigning engineering titles and responsibilities to unqualified personnel for administrative convenience?	decision
11	Should Transportation Engineer B continue performing engineering review functions despite lacking required licensure qualifications?	decision
12	Would adequate supervision by a licensed PE justify Transportation Engineer B's continued review of engineering documents?	decision
13	It is unlawful and therefore not ethical for “Transportation Engineer” B to engage in the practice of engineering without having fulfilled the requirements for licensure: adequate education, rigorous	outcome

Decision Moments (4)

1. Should Engineer A continue submitting documents for review by Transportation Engineer B after discovering their lack of proper qualifications?

{'label': '', 'action_uris': [], 'is_board_choice': True}
{'label': '', 'action_uris': [], 'is_board_choice': False}
{'label': '', 'action_uris': [], 'is_board_choice': True}

2. Should the State Agency continue assigning engineering titles and responsibilities to unqualified personnel for administrative convenience?

{'label': '', 'action_uris': [], 'is_board_choice': True}
{'label': '', 'action_uris': [], 'is_board_choice': False}

3. Should Transportation Engineer B continue performing engineering review functions despite lacking required licensure qualifications?

{'label': '', 'action_uris': [], 'is_board_choice': True}
{'label': '', 'action_uris': [], 'is_board_choice': False}

4. Would adequate supervision by a licensed PE justify Transportation Engineer B's continued review of engineering documents?

{'label': '', 'action_uris': [], 'is_board_choice': False}
{'label': '', 'action_uris': [], 'is_board_choice': True}

Timeline Flow

Sequential action-event relationships. See Analysis tab for action-obligation links.

Enables (action → event)

Document Submission Decision Document Review Decision
Document Review Decision Staff Title Assignment
Staff Title Assignment Document Review Completion

Precipitates (conflict → decision)

tension_1 decision_1
tension_1 decision_2
tension_1 decision_3
tension_1 decision_4
tension_2 decision_1
tension_2 decision_2
tension_2 decision_3
tension_2 decision_4

Key Takeaways

Professional licensure requirements create fundamental constraints on engineering practice that cannot be circumvented through supervision arrangements or alternative job titles.
The duty to report unlicensed practice can create operational conflicts with supervision obligations, but legal compliance must take precedence over workflow convenience.
Using engineering titles or performing engineering work without proper licensure is both unlawful and unethical, regardless of the individual's actual qualifications or experience.

Step 4: Synthesis Review

131

5

14

7

Stalemate

Full Entity Graph

Entity Types

Synthesis Reasoning Flow

Node Types & Relationships

NSPE Code Provisions Referenced

II.1.f. II.1.f.

III.8.a. III.8.a.

I.1. I.1.

II.1.e. II.1.e.

II.5.a. II.5.a.

Questions & Conclusions

Question 1 Board Question

Question 2 Board Question

Question 3 Implicit

Question 4 Implicit

Question 5 Implicit

Question 6 Principle Tension

Question 7 Principle Tension

Question 8 Principle Tension

Question 9 Theoretical

Question 10 Theoretical

Question 11 Theoretical

Question 12 Counterfactual

Question 13 Counterfactual

Question 14 Counterfactual

Rich Analysis Results

Causal-Normative Links 3

Document Submission Decision

Document Review Decision

Staff Title Assignment

Question Emergence 14

Is it ethical for "Transportation Engineer" B to engage in the practice of engineering when "Transportation Engineer" B is not qualified for licensure based on education, examination, and experience? 4 triggers 2 competing warrants

Triggering Events

Triggering Actions

Competing Warrants

If "Transportation Engineer" B is practicing engineering, does Engineer A have an obligation to report "Transportation Engineer" B for the unlicensed practice? 3 triggers 2 competing warrants

Triggering Events

Triggering Actions

Competing Warrants

What ethical obligations does the State Agency have in ensuring that personnel with engineering titles are actually qualified to perform engineering functions? 3 triggers 2 competing warrants

Triggering Events

Triggering Actions

Competing Warrants

Should Engineer A bear any ethical responsibility for continuing to submit documents for review by someone they know lacks proper qualifications? 2 triggers 2 competing warrants

Triggering Events

Triggering Actions

Competing Warrants

What are the broader implications for public safety when government agencies systematically assign engineering titles to unqualified personnel? 2 triggers 2 competing warrants

Triggering Events

Triggering Actions

Competing Warrants

How should Engineer A balance the principle of Competence_CaseA_Review against PublicWelfare_CaseA_Oversight when the reviewing authority lacks proper qualifications? 4 triggers 2 competing warrants

Triggering Events

Triggering Actions

Competing Warrants

Does the principle of Integrity_CaseA_Title conflict with Regulatory_CaseA_Practice when government agencies themselves violate title restrictions? 2 triggers 2 competing warrants

Triggering Events

Triggering Actions

Competing Warrants

How does Transparency_Title_Discussion tension with Competence_Supervision_Discussion when unqualified personnel supervise qualified engineers' work? 4 triggers 2 competing warrants

Triggering Events

Triggering Actions

Competing Warrants

From a deontological perspective, did Transportation Engineer B violate their categorical duty by accepting engineering responsibilities without proper qualifications? 4 triggers 2 competing warrants

Triggering Events

Triggering Actions

Competing Warrants

From a consequentialist perspective, do the potential negative outcomes of unlicensed practice justify Engineer A's reporting obligation despite possible disruption to public projects? 3 triggers 2 competing warrants

Triggering Events

Triggering Actions

Competing Warrants

From a virtue ethics perspective, what professional virtues should guide Engineer A's response to discovering systemic unlicensed practice in government oversight? 3 triggers 2 competing warrants

Triggering Events

Triggering Actions