Overview View Extraction
Draft Continue to Step 4

PASS 3: Temporal Dynamics

Case 57: Duty to Report – Material Information

Extraction Complete
Total Entities: 15
Actions: 3
Events: 3
Causal Chains: 3
Allen Relations: 5
Timeline: 6
Timeline Overview
Note: The timeline includes only actions and events with clear temporal markers that could be sequenced chronologically.
Timeline Elements: 6
Actions on Timeline: 3 (of 3 extracted)
Events on Timeline: 3 (of 3 extracted)
Temporal Markers
  • Over 5 years 1 elements
  • After discovering current omission 1 elements
  • After completing records review 1 elements
  • Present moment 1 elements
  • During records review 1 elements
  • After selective disclosure 1 elements
Temporal Consistency Check
Valid
Extracted Actions (3)
Volitional professional decisions with intentions and ethical context

Description: Inspector repeatedly failed to report visible concrete bridge defect over multiple inspection cycles. This pattern occurred consistently across 5 years of inspection records.

Temporal Marker: Over 5 years

Mental State: deliberate omission

Intended Outcome: Avoid reporting complications

Guided By Principles:
  • Convenience over safety
Required Capabilities:
Visual inspection skills Defect identification
Within Competence: Yes
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Avoided confrontation and administrative burden of reporting systematic failures; may have feared career repercussions or simply developed routine negligence

Ethical Tension: Personal convenience vs professional duty to public safety; loyalty to colleagues vs accountability standards

Learning Significance: Demonstrates how routine negligence can become normalized and create systemic safety risks

Stakes: Bridge structural integrity, public safety, professional liability, erosion of inspection system credibility

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:
  • Report defect immediately upon discovery
  • Seek second opinion from senior inspector
  • Document defect with recommendation for further evaluation

Narrative Role: inciting_incident

RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/57#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/57#Action_Defect_Reporting_Omission",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Report defect immediately upon discovery",
    "Seek second opinion from senior inspector",
    "Document defect with recommendation for further evaluation"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Avoided confrontation and administrative burden of reporting systematic failures; may have feared career repercussions or simply developed routine negligence",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Proper safety protocol followed, potential bridge repairs initiated",
    "Collaborative problem-solving, shared responsibility",
    "Created paper trail while escalating decision to higher authority"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Demonstrates how routine negligence can become normalized and create systemic safety risks",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Personal convenience vs professional duty to public safety; loyalty to colleagues vs accountability standards",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "inciting_incident",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Bridge structural integrity, public safety, professional liability, erosion of inspection system credibility",
  "proeth:description": "Inspector repeatedly failed to report visible concrete bridge defect over multiple inspection cycles. This pattern occurred consistently across 5 years of inspection records.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Safety risk continuation",
    "Regulatory non-compliance"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Convenience over safety"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Inspector (under Engineer Intern A\u0027s supervision)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Reporting accuracy vs Administrative burden",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Prioritized operational simplicity over safety reporting"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate omission",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Avoid reporting complications",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Visual inspection skills",
    "Defect identification"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Over 5 years",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Public safety",
    "Professional integrity",
    "Accurate reporting"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Defect Reporting Omission"
}

Description: Engineer Intern A conducted comprehensive review of 5 years of inspection records after discovering the current defect omission. This revealed the systematic pattern of missed defects.

Temporal Marker: After discovering current omission

Mental State: diligent investigation

Intended Outcome: Understand scope of inspection failures

Fulfills Obligations:
  • Due diligence
  • Thorough investigation
Guided By Principles:
  • Professional thoroughness
  • Fact-finding
Required Capabilities:
Record analysis Pattern recognition
Within Competence: Yes
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Due diligence to understand scope of problem; professional responsibility to ensure thoroughness; possibly building case for systemic change

Ethical Tension: Thoroughness vs efficiency; individual initiative vs following established procedures

Learning Significance: Shows importance of systematic analysis when discovering potential safety issues

Stakes: Understanding true scope of safety risk, potential liability for past oversights, credibility of inspection program

Narrative Role: rising_action

RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/57#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/57#Action_Historical_Records_Review",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Report immediately without historical analysis",
    "Involve supervisor in records review process"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Due diligence to understand scope of problem; professional responsibility to ensure thoroughness; possibly building case for systemic change",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Faster response but incomplete understanding of systemic issues",
    "Shared decision-making but potential for covering up problems"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Shows importance of systematic analysis when discovering potential safety issues",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Thoroughness vs efficiency; individual initiative vs following established procedures",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": false,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Understanding true scope of safety risk, potential liability for past oversights, credibility of inspection program",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A conducted comprehensive review of 5 years of inspection records after discovering the current defect omission. This revealed the systematic pattern of missed defects.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Discovery of systemic problems"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Due diligence",
    "Thorough investigation"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Professional thoroughness",
    "Fact-finding"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer Intern A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "diligent investigation",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Understand scope of inspection failures",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Record analysis",
    "Pattern recognition"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After discovering current omission",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Historical Records Review"
}

Description: Engineer Intern A reported the current defect to supervising Engineer B but deliberately withheld information about the 5-year pattern of similar omissions. This created an incomplete picture of the systematic nature of the problem.

Temporal Marker: After completing records review

Mental State: conflicted partial disclosure

Intended Outcome: Address immediate defect while avoiding broader implications

Fulfills Obligations:
  • Immediate safety reporting
Guided By Principles:
  • Partial compliance
  • Risk minimization
Required Capabilities:
Licensed engineer judgment Authority to assess materiality
Within Competence: No
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Avoided overwhelming supervisor while ensuring immediate safety issue was addressed; possibly protecting inspector from severe consequences or organizational embarrassment

Ethical Tension: Loyalty to colleague vs complete transparency; immediate safety vs systemic reform; hierarchy respect vs full disclosure

Learning Significance: Critical teaching moment about the dangers of incomplete reporting and enabling systemic problems

Stakes: Future inspection credibility, potential for continued systematic failures, professional integrity, public trust in infrastructure safety

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:
  • Provide complete information including 5-year pattern
  • Request private meeting to discuss systemic inspection failures
  • Recommend comprehensive audit of inspection procedures

Narrative Role: climax

RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/57#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/57#Action_Selective_Information_Disclosure",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Provide complete information including 5-year pattern",
    "Request private meeting to discuss systemic inspection failures",
    "Recommend comprehensive audit of inspection procedures"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Avoided overwhelming supervisor while ensuring immediate safety issue was addressed; possibly protecting inspector from severe consequences or organizational embarrassment",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Full transparency enables systemic fixes but may trigger severe disciplinary action",
    "Diplomatic approach allowing face-saving while addressing problems",
    "Organizational learning opportunity but potential for widespread program disruption"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Critical teaching moment about the dangers of incomplete reporting and enabling systemic problems",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Loyalty to colleague vs complete transparency; immediate safety vs systemic reform; hierarchy respect vs full disclosure",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "climax",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Future inspection credibility, potential for continued systematic failures, professional integrity, public trust in infrastructure safety",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A reported the current defect to supervising Engineer B but deliberately withheld information about the 5-year pattern of similar omissions. This created an incomplete picture of the systematic nature of the problem.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Incomplete assessment by Engineer B",
    "Potential continued systematic failures"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Immediate safety reporting"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Partial compliance",
    "Risk minimization"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer Intern A",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Investigation urgency vs Complete transparency",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Rationalized that revealing pattern might reduce investigation urgency for current defect"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "conflicted partial disclosure",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Address immediate defect while avoiding broader implications",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Licensed engineer judgment",
    "Authority to assess materiality"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After completing records review",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Complete disclosure",
    "Professional transparency",
    "Comprehensive safety assessment"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": false,
  "rdfs:label": "Selective Information Disclosure"
}
Extracted Events (3)
Occurrences that trigger ethical considerations and state changes

Description: Engineer Intern A discovers a visible concrete bridge defect that was not reported by the inspector under their supervision.

Temporal Marker: Present moment

Activates Constraints:
  • PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
  • Professional_Competence_Constraint
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Alarm and concern for Engineer Intern A; potential embarrassment for inspector; anxiety about public safety implications

Stakeholder Consequences:
  • engineer_intern_a: Professional responsibility to address safety issue and supervision failure
  • inspector: Professional competence questioned, potential disciplinary action
  • public: Bridge safety compromised, trust in inspection process at risk
  • supervising_engineer_b: Unaware of full scope of problem

Learning Moment: Shows how inspection failures can compromise public safety and create ethical dilemmas for supervising engineers

Ethical Implications: Reveals tension between loyalty to subordinates and duty to public safety; demonstrates supervisory responsibility for work quality

Discussion Prompts:
  • What immediate actions should Engineer Intern A take upon discovering this defect?
  • How does this discovery change the intern's professional obligations?
  • What are the competing interests between protecting the inspector and ensuring public safety?
Tension: high Pacing: escalation
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/57#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/57#Event_Defect_Discovery",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "What immediate actions should Engineer Intern A take upon discovering this defect?",
    "How does this discovery change the intern\u0027s professional obligations?",
    "What are the competing interests between protecting the inspector and ensuring public safety?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "high",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Alarm and concern for Engineer Intern A; potential embarrassment for inspector; anxiety about public safety implications",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals tension between loyalty to subordinates and duty to public safety; demonstrates supervisory responsibility for work quality",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Shows how inspection failures can compromise public safety and create ethical dilemmas for supervising engineers",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "escalation",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "engineer_intern_a": "Professional responsibility to address safety issue and supervision failure",
    "inspector": "Professional competence questioned, potential disciplinary action",
    "public": "Bridge safety compromised, trust in inspection process at risk",
    "supervising_engineer_b": "Unaware of full scope of problem"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint",
    "Professional_Competence_Constraint"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/57#Action_Defect_Reporting_Omission",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Safety concern identified; supervision failure revealed; reporting decision required",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Report_Safety_Issue",
    "Investigate_Inspector_Competence",
    "Document_Findings"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A discovers a visible concrete bridge defect that was not reported by the inspector under their supervision.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "high",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Present moment",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "high",
  "rdfs:label": "Defect Discovery"
}

Description: Review of 5 years of inspection records reveals the same concrete bridge defect was consistently missed over time, indicating systematic inspection failure.

Temporal Marker: During records review

Activates Constraints:
  • PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint
  • Professional_Integrity_Constraint
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Shock and grave concern for Engineer Intern A; potential fear of career consequences; overwhelming responsibility burden

Stakeholder Consequences:
  • engineer_intern_a: Faces major ethical dilemma with career implications; holds critical safety information
  • inspector: Professional competence fundamentally questioned; potential termination or legal liability
  • public: Long-term safety compromise; systematic failure of protective systems
  • engineering_organization: Institutional credibility at risk; systematic quality control failure exposed

Learning Moment: Demonstrates how individual failures can be symptoms of systematic problems; shows escalating ethical obligations with increasing knowledge

Ethical Implications: Reveals tension between protecting individual careers and institutional integrity versus public safety; demonstrates how partial disclosure can be more dangerous than complete transparency

Discussion Prompts:
  • How does discovering a pattern change the ethical analysis compared to a single incident?
  • What are the competing obligations when an individual error becomes a systematic failure?
  • How should professional loyalty be balanced against public safety when patterns of incompetence emerge?
Crisis / Turning Point Tension: high Pacing: crisis
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/57#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/57#Event_Pattern_Revelation",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": true,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "How does discovering a pattern change the ethical analysis compared to a single incident?",
    "What are the competing obligations when an individual error becomes a systematic failure?",
    "How should professional loyalty be balanced against public safety when patterns of incompetence emerge?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "high",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Shock and grave concern for Engineer Intern A; potential fear of career consequences; overwhelming responsibility burden",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals tension between protecting individual careers and institutional integrity versus public safety; demonstrates how partial disclosure can be more dangerous than complete transparency",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Demonstrates how individual failures can be symptoms of systematic problems; shows escalating ethical obligations with increasing knowledge",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "crisis",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "engineer_intern_a": "Faces major ethical dilemma with career implications; holds critical safety information",
    "engineering_organization": "Institutional credibility at risk; systematic quality control failure exposed",
    "inspector": "Professional competence fundamentally questioned; potential termination or legal liability",
    "public": "Long-term safety compromise; systematic failure of protective systems"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint",
    "Professional_Integrity_Constraint"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/57#Action_Historical_Records_Review",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Isolated incident escalates to systematic failure; public safety risk magnified; full disclosure becomes imperative",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Report_Full_Pattern",
    "Investigate_Root_Causes",
    "Review_All_Inspector_Work",
    "Notify_Authorities"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Review of 5 years of inspection records reveals the same concrete bridge defect was consistently missed over time, indicating systematic inspection failure.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "critical",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During records review",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "critical",
  "rdfs:label": "Pattern Revelation"
}

Description: Engineer B receives incomplete information about the bridge safety issue, knowing only about the current defect but not the 5-year pattern of inspection failures.

Temporal Marker: After selective disclosure

Activates Constraints:
  • Professional_Communication_Constraint
  • Informed_Decision_Making_Constraint
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: False confidence for Engineer B; continued anxiety and guilt for Engineer Intern A; unknowing vulnerability for public

Stakeholder Consequences:
  • engineer_b: Making decisions based on incomplete information; professional liability increased
  • engineer_intern_a: Carries burden of withheld information; increased ethical stress
  • public: Receives inadequate protection due to incomplete response
  • organization: Systematic problem remains unaddressed; institutional risk continues

Learning Moment: Illustrates how partial disclosure can be more dangerous than no disclosure; shows impact of information control on decision quality

Ethical Implications: Demonstrates how information control can undermine professional hierarchy and decision-making; reveals tension between personal judgment and institutional communication requirements

Discussion Prompts:
  • What are the consequences when subordinates control information flow to decision-makers?
  • How does this information asymmetry affect the distribution of professional responsibility?
  • What systems could prevent such information filtering in safety-critical situations?
Tension: medium Pacing: slow_burn
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/57#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/57#Event_Information_Asymmetry_Creation",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "What are the consequences when subordinates control information flow to decision-makers?",
    "How does this information asymmetry affect the distribution of professional responsibility?",
    "What systems could prevent such information filtering in safety-critical situations?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "medium",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "False confidence for Engineer B; continued anxiety and guilt for Engineer Intern A; unknowing vulnerability for public",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Demonstrates how information control can undermine professional hierarchy and decision-making; reveals tension between personal judgment and institutional communication requirements",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Illustrates how partial disclosure can be more dangerous than no disclosure; shows impact of information control on decision quality",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "slow_burn",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "engineer_b": "Making decisions based on incomplete information; professional liability increased",
    "engineer_intern_a": "Carries burden of withheld information; increased ethical stress",
    "organization": "Systematic problem remains unaddressed; institutional risk continues",
    "public": "Receives inadequate protection due to incomplete response"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Professional_Communication_Constraint",
    "Informed_Decision_Making_Constraint"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/57#Action_Selective_Information_Disclosure",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Decision-maker operates with incomplete information; response likely to be inadequate; future liability created",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Provide_Complete_Context",
    "Enable_Informed_Decisions",
    "Correct_Information_Gap"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B receives incomplete information about the bridge safety issue, knowing only about the current defect but not the 5-year pattern of inspection failures.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "high",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After selective disclosure",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "high",
  "rdfs:label": "Information Asymmetry Creation"
}
Causal Chains (3)
NESS test analysis: Necessary Element of Sufficient Set

Causal Language: Inspector repeatedly failed to report visible concrete bridge defect over multiple inspection cycles

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Systematic omission of defect reporting by inspector
  • Multiple inspection cycles without proper documentation
  • Visible defect that should have been documented
Sufficient Factors:
  • Combination of repeated inspection failures + lack of documentation standards + absence of oversight
Counterfactual Test: If inspector had properly reported defects, there would be no pattern of omissions to discover
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Inspector
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Defect Reporting Omission
    Inspector systematically fails to report visible concrete bridge defects
  2. Defect Discovery
    Engineer Intern A discovers unreported visible concrete bridge defect
  3. Historical Records Review
    Engineer Intern A conducts comprehensive 5-year review of inspection records
  4. Pattern Revelation
    Review reveals consistent pattern of the same defect being unreported
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/57#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/57#CausalChain_dd28cf53",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Inspector repeatedly failed to report visible concrete bridge defect over multiple inspection cycles",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Inspector systematically fails to report visible concrete bridge defects",
      "proeth:element": "Defect Reporting Omission",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A discovers unreported visible concrete bridge defect",
      "proeth:element": "Defect Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A conducts comprehensive 5-year review of inspection records",
      "proeth:element": "Historical Records Review",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Review reveals consistent pattern of the same defect being unreported",
      "proeth:element": "Pattern Revelation",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Defect Reporting Omission",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "If inspector had properly reported defects, there would be no pattern of omissions to discover",
  "proeth:effect": "Pattern Revelation",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Systematic omission of defect reporting by inspector",
    "Multiple inspection cycles without proper documentation",
    "Visible defect that should have been documented"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Inspector",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of repeated inspection failures + lack of documentation standards + absence of oversight"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer Intern A reported the current defect to supervising Engineer B but deliberately withheld information about the historical pattern

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Knowledge of both current defect and historical pattern
  • Deliberate decision to withhold historical information
  • Communication with supervising engineer about current issue only
Sufficient Factors:
  • Combination of selective disclosure + withholding of critical historical context
Counterfactual Test: If Engineer Intern A had disclosed complete information, Engineer B would have full knowledge for decision-making
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer Intern A
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Pattern Revelation
    Engineer Intern A discovers 5-year pattern of inspection failures
  2. Selective Information Disclosure
    Engineer Intern A chooses to report only current defect, withholding historical pattern
  3. Information Asymmetry Creation
    Engineer B receives incomplete information about bridge safety issue scope
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/57#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/57#CausalChain_8069795f",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer Intern A reported the current defect to supervising Engineer B but deliberately withheld information about the historical pattern",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A discovers 5-year pattern of inspection failures",
      "proeth:element": "Pattern Revelation",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A chooses to report only current defect, withholding historical pattern",
      "proeth:element": "Selective Information Disclosure",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B receives incomplete information about bridge safety issue scope",
      "proeth:element": "Information Asymmetry Creation",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Selective Information Disclosure",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "If Engineer Intern A had disclosed complete information, Engineer B would have full knowledge for decision-making",
  "proeth:effect": "Information Asymmetry Creation",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Knowledge of both current defect and historical pattern",
    "Deliberate decision to withhold historical information",
    "Communication with supervising engineer about current issue only"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer Intern A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of selective disclosure + withholding of critical historical context"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer Intern A conducted comprehensive review of 5 years of inspection records after discovering the unreported defect

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Discovery of previously unreported defect
  • Engineer Intern A's initiative to investigate further
  • Access to historical inspection records
Sufficient Factors:
  • Combination of defect discovery + investigative initiative + record accessibility
Counterfactual Test: Without the initial defect discovery, there would be no trigger for historical investigation
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer Intern A
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Defect Discovery
    Engineer Intern A discovers visible concrete bridge defect not in inspection reports
  2. Historical Records Review
    Engineer Intern A initiates comprehensive 5-year review of inspection records
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/57#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/57#CausalChain_248b0eaf",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer Intern A conducted comprehensive review of 5 years of inspection records after discovering the unreported defect",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A discovers visible concrete bridge defect not in inspection reports",
      "proeth:element": "Defect Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A initiates comprehensive 5-year review of inspection records",
      "proeth:element": "Historical Records Review",
      "proeth:step": 2
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Defect Discovery",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the initial defect discovery, there would be no trigger for historical investigation",
  "proeth:effect": "Historical Records Review",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Discovery of previously unreported defect",
    "Engineer Intern A\u0027s initiative to investigate further",
    "Access to historical inspection records"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer Intern A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of defect discovery + investigative initiative + record accessibility"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}
Allen Temporal Relations (5)
Interval algebra relationships with OWL-Time standard properties
From Entity Allen Relation To Entity OWL-Time Property Evidence
certificate of occupancy issuance after
Entity1 is after Entity2 		construction modifications time:after
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#after 		following construction modifications, the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county...
defect discovery after
Entity1 is after Entity2 		five years of missed inspections time:after
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#after 		Engineer Intern A observed that an inspector under the supervision of Engineer Intern A had failed t...
historical record review after
Entity1 is after Entity2 		initial defect observation time:after
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#after 		While reviewing the inspection report for a bridge, Engineer Intern A observed that an inspector... ...
reporting to Engineer B after
Entity1 is after Entity2 		historical record review time:after
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#after 		Engineer Intern A reviewed the inspector's reports and photographs going back five years and discove...
Engineer A's immediate actions after
Entity1 is after Entity2 		structural instability conclusion time:after
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#after 		Engineer A performed a preliminary investigation of the building and after speaking with Client B, c...
About Allen Relations & OWL-Time

Allen's Interval Algebra provides 13 basic temporal relations between intervals. These relations are mapped to OWL-Time standard properties for interoperability with Semantic Web temporal reasoning systems and SPARQL queries.

Each relation includes both a ProEthica custom property and a time:* OWL-Time property for maximum compatibility.

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3 | Report Issue