Step 4: Synthesis Review
Case 57: Duty to Report – Material Information
Full Entity Graph
Loading...Entity Types
Synthesis Reasoning Flow
Shows how NSPE provisions inform questions and conclusions - the board's reasoning chainNode Types & Relationships
→ Question answered by Conclusion
→ Provision applies to Entity
NSPE Code Provisions Referenced
View ExtractionII.3.a. II.3.a.
Full Text:
Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony, which should bear the date indicating when it was current.
Applies To:
I.1. I.1.
Full Text:
Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
Applies To:
I.5. I.5.
Full Text:
Avoid deceptive acts.
Applies To:
I.6. I.6.
Full Text:
Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
Applies To:
III.3.a. III.3.a.
Full Text:
Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact.
Applies To:
Questions & Conclusions
View ExtractionQuestion 1 Board Question
Was it ethical for Engineer Intern A to fail to report to Engineer B that the defect had been missed for at least five annual inspections?
It was not ethical for Engineer Intern A to fail to report to Engineer B that the defect had been missed for at least five years.
Question 2 Implicit
Should Engineer Intern A have directly confronted the inspector about the pattern of missed defects before reporting to Engineer B?
Addressing the implicit question about direct confrontation (Q101), Engineer Intern A should not have confronted the inspector directly before reporting to Engineer B. The supervisory hierarchy and the unlicensed status of Engineer Intern A created clear constraints requiring escalation through proper channels. However, this does not excuse the incomplete disclosure - the proper approach was full disclosure to Engineer B including both the current defect and the historical pattern, allowing the licensed supervisor to determine appropriate corrective actions.
Question 3 Implicit
What ethical obligations does Engineer B bear for the systemic failure in bridge inspection oversight that allowed five years of missed defects?
The Board's conclusion illuminates a systemic failure in the supervisory chain that extends beyond Engineer Intern A's individual ethical lapse. Engineer B's supervisory obligation was compromised by the information asymmetry created through selective disclosure, preventing them from fulfilling their responsible charge duties. This case demonstrates how partial disclosure can cascade into broader organizational failures, undermining the entire bridge inspection program's integrity.
Question 4 Implicit
Does Engineer Intern A's unlicensed status affect their ethical obligations regarding material fact disclosure?
Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer Intern A failed in their disclosure obligations, this case reveals a critical gap in professional development regarding materiality assessment. Engineer Intern A's unlicensed status created a competence boundary where they could recognize the technical defect but lacked the professional judgment to assess the materiality of the five-year pattern. This suggests that supervision protocols should explicitly address not just technical oversight but also guidance on what constitutes material facts requiring disclosure.
This case reveals a fundamental tension between Transparency_FullDisclosure_Case and CompetenceLimitation_CurrentCase that was improperly resolved. Engineer Intern A attempted to navigate their competence limitations by making selective disclosures, but this violated the paramount principle of PublicWelfare_BridgeSafety_Case. The proper resolution required recognizing that competence limitations mandate fuller, not lesser, disclosure to qualified supervisors. When uncertain about materiality, the ethical obligation is to err on the side of complete transparency rather than selective judgment.
Question 5 Principle Tension
Does MaterialFactDisclosure_CurrentCase conflict with ExtendedResponsibility_Case0710 regarding the scope of disclosure obligations?
Question 6 Principle Tension
Does the principle of Transparency_FullDisclosure_Case conflict with CompetenceLimitation_CurrentCase when an unlicensed engineer must assess the materiality of information?
This case reveals a fundamental tension between Transparency_FullDisclosure_Case and CompetenceLimitation_CurrentCase that was improperly resolved. Engineer Intern A attempted to navigate their competence limitations by making selective disclosures, but this violated the paramount principle of PublicWelfare_BridgeSafety_Case. The proper resolution required recognizing that competence limitations mandate fuller, not lesser, disclosure to qualified supervisors. When uncertain about materiality, the ethical obligation is to err on the side of complete transparency rather than selective judgment.
Question 7 Principle Tension
How does PublicWelfare_BridgeSafety_Case tension with Competence_SupervisoryOversight_Case when immediate safety concerns conflict with proper supervisory channels?
The case demonstrates that Integrity_InspectionAccuracy_Case and Competence_SupervisoryOversight_Case are mutually reinforcing rather than conflicting principles. Engineer Intern A's failure to provide complete information undermined both inspection integrity and supervisory oversight effectiveness. This teaches that professional integrity in subordinate roles requires recognizing the limits of one's judgment and compensating through enhanced transparency to qualified supervisors, not through independent materiality assessments that exceed one's professional authority.
From a consequentialist perspective, did Engineer Intern A's partial disclosure maximize overall utility given the potential outcomes for public safety?
From a consequentialist perspective (Q302), Engineer Intern A's partial disclosure failed to maximize overall utility because it prevented optimal decision-making by Engineer B. While the immediate defect was addressed, the systemic inspection failure remained hidden, potentially compromising future public safety. The five-year pattern suggested broader competence issues requiring immediate corrective action - information that could have prevented future inspection failures and enhanced overall bridge safety program effectiveness.
From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer Intern A demonstrate professional integrity when they selectively disclosed information to their supervisor?
The case demonstrates that Integrity_InspectionAccuracy_Case and Competence_SupervisoryOversight_Case are mutually reinforcing rather than conflicting principles. Engineer Intern A's failure to provide complete information undermined both inspection integrity and supervisory oversight effectiveness. This teaches that professional integrity in subordinate roles requires recognizing the limits of one's judgment and compensating through enhanced transparency to qualified supervisors, not through independent materiality assessments that exceed one's professional authority.
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer Intern A fulfill their categorical duty of truthfulness when they disclosed the defect but omitted the five-year history?
Question 11 Counterfactual
Would Engineer B's decision-making have been materially different if Engineer Intern A had disclosed the complete five-year history of missed defects?
Question 12 Counterfactual
What if Engineer Intern A had discovered that Engineer B was already aware of the inspector's pattern of missed defects?
Question 13 Counterfactual
Would the ethical analysis change if the bridge defect posed an immediate rather than long-term safety risk?
Rich Analysis Results
View ExtractionCausal-Normative Links 3
Defect Reporting Omission
- Complete Reporting Obligation
- Material Facts Obligation
- EngineerInternA_CompleteReporting_DefectHistory
- Inspector_Reporting_BridgeDefect
- EngineerInternA_MaterialFacts
Historical Records Review
- Complete Reporting Obligation
- Material Facts Obligation
- Supervision Obligation
Selective Information Disclosure
- Complete Reporting Obligation
- Material Facts Obligation
- Extended Notification Obligation
- EngineerInternA_MaterialFacts
Question Emergence 13
Triggering Events
- Defect Discovery
- Pattern Revelation
- Historical Records Review
Triggering Actions
- Selective Information Disclosure
- Defect Reporting Omission
- Information Asymmetry Creation
Competing Warrants
- Complete Reporting Obligation Material Facts Obligation
Triggering Events
- Defect Discovery
- Pattern Revelation
- Information Asymmetry Creation
Triggering Actions
- Selective Information Disclosure
- Defect Reporting Omission
Competing Warrants
- Complete Reporting Obligation Supervision Obligation
- Material Facts Obligation Supervision Obligation
Triggering Events
- Pattern Revelation
- Information Asymmetry Creation
- Historical Records Review
Triggering Actions
- Defect Reporting Omission
- Selective Information Disclosure
Competing Warrants
- Complete Reporting Obligation Supervision Obligation
- Material Facts Obligation Supervision Obligation
Triggering Events
- Pattern Revelation
- Information Asymmetry Creation
Triggering Actions
- Defect Reporting Omission
- Selective Information Disclosure
Competing Warrants
- Supervision Obligation Complete Reporting Obligation
- Material Facts Obligation Supervision Obligation
Triggering Events
- Defect Discovery
- Pattern Revelation
Triggering Actions
- Defect Reporting Omission
- Selective Information Disclosure
Competing Warrants
- Complete Reporting Obligation Extended Notification Obligation
- Material Facts Obligation Persistence Obligation
Triggering Events
- Defect Discovery
- Pattern Revelation
- Information Asymmetry Creation
Triggering Actions
- Defect Reporting Omission
- Selective Information Disclosure
Competing Warrants
- Material Facts Obligation Extended Notification Obligation
Triggering Events
- Defect Discovery
- Pattern Revelation
- Historical Records Review
Triggering Actions
- Selective Information Disclosure
- Defect Reporting Omission
- Information Asymmetry Creation
Competing Warrants
- Complete Reporting Obligation Material Facts Obligation
Triggering Events
- Defect Discovery
- Pattern Revelation
- Historical Records Review
Triggering Actions
- Defect Reporting Omission
- Selective Information Disclosure
- Information Asymmetry Creation
Competing Warrants
- Complete Reporting Obligation Supervision Obligation
- Material Facts Obligation Supervision Obligation
Triggering Events
- Defect Discovery
- Pattern Revelation
Triggering Actions
- Defect Reporting Omission
- Historical Records Review
Competing Warrants
- Supervision Obligation Complete Reporting Obligation
- Supervision Obligation Material Facts Obligation
Triggering Events
- Pattern Revelation
- Historical Records Review
Triggering Actions
- Defect Reporting Omission
- EngineerInternA_Supervision_Inspector
- Inspector_Reporting_BridgeDefect
Competing Warrants
- Supervision Obligation Complete Reporting Obligation
Triggering Events
- Defect Discovery
- Pattern Revelation
- Information Asymmetry Creation
Triggering Actions
- Defect Reporting Omission
- Selective Information Disclosure
Competing Warrants
- Material Facts Obligation Supervision Obligation
- Complete Reporting Obligation Supervision Obligation
Triggering Events
- Defect Discovery
- Pattern Revelation
- Information Asymmetry Creation
Triggering Actions
- Defect Reporting Omission
- Historical Records Review
- Selective Information Disclosure
Competing Warrants
- Complete Reporting Obligation Supervision Obligation
- Material Facts Obligation Supervision Obligation
Triggering Events
- Defect Discovery
- Pattern Revelation
- Information Asymmetry Creation
Triggering Actions
- Defect Reporting Omission
- Selective Information Disclosure
Competing Warrants
- Supervision Obligation Extended Notification Obligation
- Complete Reporting Obligation Persistence Obligation
Resolution Patterns 7
Determinative Principles
- Transparency and full disclosure
- Public safety paramount
- Truthfulness in professional communications
Determinative Facts
- Engineer Intern A discovered the defect had been missed for at least five annual inspections
- Engineer Intern A only reported the current defect without the historical pattern
- The five-year pattern indicated systemic inspection failure
Determinative Principles
- Competence limitations of unlicensed engineers
- Professional development requirements
- Materiality assessment capabilities
Determinative Facts
- Engineer Intern A was unlicensed
- Engineer Intern A could identify technical defects but struggled with materiality assessment
- The five-year pattern required professional judgment to evaluate significance
Determinative Principles
- Supervisory responsibility
- Information asymmetry effects
- Responsible charge duties
- Systemic integrity
Determinative Facts
- Engineer B was deprived of complete information
- Selective disclosure created information asymmetry
- Engineer B could not fulfill supervisory duties without complete information
- The failure cascaded into broader organizational problems
Determinative Principles
- Supervisory hierarchy respect
- Proper escalation channels
- Authority limitations of unlicensed engineers
Determinative Facts
- Engineer Intern A was unlicensed
- Proper supervisory hierarchy existed
- Direct confrontation would bypass established channels
- Engineer B was the appropriate supervisor
Determinative Principles
- Utility maximization
- Optimal decision-making enablement
- Future public safety protection
- Systemic problem resolution
Determinative Facts
- Immediate defect was addressed but systemic problem remained
- Engineer B could not make optimal decisions without complete information
- Five-year pattern suggested broader competence issues
- Hidden systemic failure could compromise future safety
Determinative Principles
- Full disclosure transparency
- Public welfare paramount
- Competence limitation recognition
- Uncertainty resolution through enhanced disclosure
Determinative Facts
- Engineer Intern A made selective rather than complete disclosures
- Competence limitations existed but were improperly addressed
- Public safety was the paramount concern
- Uncertainty about materiality existed
Determinative Principles
- Professional integrity
- Inspection accuracy
- Supervisory oversight effectiveness
- Mutual reinforcement of ethical principles
Determinative Facts
- Incomplete information undermined both integrity and oversight
- Professional integrity requires recognizing judgment limitations
- Enhanced transparency compensates for competence limitations
- Independent materiality assessment exceeded professional authority
Decision Points
View ExtractionShould Engineer A fulfill the Material Facts Obligation to report the bridge defect given the circumstances?
- Report the material facts about the bridge defect
- Do not report the defect
Engineer A should report the material facts about the bridge defect
Because Material Facts Obligation requires this action
Engineer A should NOT report the material facts about the bridge defect
Because competing professional interests may be affected
Engineer A should adopt the Do not report the defect
Because this promotes Professional Judgment
Engineer A should NOT adopt the Do not report the defect
Because competing professional interests may be affected
Should Engineer A fulfill the Supervision Obligation for work conducted under their professional oversight?
- Maintain proper supervision of the work
- Delegate supervision without oversight
Engineer A should maintain proper supervision of the work
Because Supervision Obligation requires this action
Engineer A should NOT maintain proper supervision of the work
Because this may reduce necessary human judgment and oversight
Engineer A should adopt the Delegate supervision without oversight
Because this promotes Professional Judgment
Engineer A should NOT adopt the Delegate supervision without oversight
Because competing professional interests may be affected
Should Engineer A fulfill the Extended Notification Obligation to notify relevant authorities about the bridge defect?
- Notify appropriate authorities about the safety concern
- Limit notification to client only
Engineer A should notify appropriate authorities about the safety concern
Because Extended Notification Obligation requires this action
Engineer A should NOT notify appropriate authorities about the safety concern
Because this may reduce operational efficiency
Engineer A should limit notification to client only
Because this promotes Professional Judgment
Engineer A should NOT limit notification to client only
Because competing professional interests may be affected
Should Engineer A fulfill the Persistence Obligation to continue pursuing resolution of the bridge defect?
- Continue pursuing resolution until safety is ensured
- Accept initial response as sufficient
Engineer A should continue pursuing resolution until safety is ensured
Because Persistence Obligation requires this action
Engineer A should NOT continue pursuing resolution until safety is ensured
Because this may reduce operational efficiency
Engineer A should accept initial response as sufficient
Because this promotes Professional Judgment
Engineer A should NOT accept initial response as sufficient
Because competing professional interests may be affected
Should Engineer Intern fulfill their obligation to report the bridge defect through proper channels?
- Report the bridge defect through proper channels
- Defer reporting to supervising engineer
Engineer Intern should report the bridge defect through proper channels
Because Safety Reporting Obligation requires this action
Engineer Intern should NOT report the bridge defect through proper channels
Because this may reduce operational efficiency
Engineer Intern should defer reporting to supervising engineer
Because this promotes Professional Judgment
Engineer Intern should NOT defer reporting to supervising engineer
Because this may reduce operational efficiency
Case Narrative
Phase 4 narrative construction results for Case 57
Opening Context
You are Engineer A, a junior engineer conducting a routine structural inspection when you discover a significant defect that could compromise project safety. As you prepare your detailed report, you realize that your supervisor has only partially disclosed similar findings from previous inspections, leaving you uncertain about how to proceed with your documentation responsibilities. The weight of your professional obligation to report accurately now conflicts with the complex dynamics of your supervisory relationship.
Characters (7)
A key stakeholder or decision-maker in the engineering project who likely holds authority over project direction and resource allocation.
- Seeks to balance project success, cost control, and risk management while maintaining organizational reputation and compliance.
A supervising professional engineer responsible for overseeing junior staff and ensuring quality control in engineering work.
- Aims to maintain professional standards, fulfill supervisory duties, and protect public safety while managing team performance and project deliverables.
A qualified professional responsible for examining and evaluating engineering work, particularly bridge structures, to identify defects and ensure safety compliance.
- Committed to thorough assessment and accurate reporting of structural conditions to prevent public safety hazards and maintain professional integrity.
A junior engineer or intern working under supervision with responsibilities for detailed reporting and documentation of project findings.
- Strives to demonstrate competence, fulfill reporting obligations accurately, and build professional credibility while learning from senior colleagues.
The project client or contracting party who has commissioned the engineering services and expects deliverable outcomes.
- Seeks to receive quality engineering services that meet project requirements, timeline expectations, and budget constraints while ensuring regulatory compliance.
States (10)
Event Timeline (10)
| # | Event | Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | An engineering case begins in a complex environment where inspection defects have been discovered but only partially disclosed to relevant parties. This situation sets the stage for potential ethical conflicts regarding transparency and professional responsibility. | state |
| 2 | Critical defects identified during inspection processes are not properly reported through established channels. This omission creates a gap in the official record that could impact safety assessments and decision-making. | action |
| 3 | A comprehensive examination of historical documentation reveals patterns and context surrounding previous defect occurrences. This review becomes crucial for understanding the full scope of potential safety and compliance issues. | action |
| 4 | Information about defects and safety concerns is shared incompletely, with certain details withheld from stakeholders who need full disclosure. This selective sharing compromises informed decision-making and violates principles of transparency. | action |
| 5 | Additional defects are uncovered during ongoing inspection or investigation activities. These new findings compound existing concerns and increase the urgency for proper reporting and remediation. | automatic |
| 6 | Analysis reveals a systematic pattern of defects or reporting issues rather than isolated incidents. This discovery elevates the significance of the case from individual oversights to potential systemic problems requiring comprehensive response. | automatic |
| 7 | A situation develops where different parties have unequal access to critical safety and defect information. This imbalance undermines fair decision-making and creates potential liability issues for those with incomplete information. | automatic |
| 8 | Engineer Intern A faces a direct ethical conflict between their professional duty to fully disclose defect history and institutional pressures or requirements that limit such disclosure. This tension represents the core ethical dilemma requiring resolution according to professional engineering standards. | automatic |
| 9 | Engineer A has a safety obligation but faces budget and staff resource limitations that may prevent adequate safety measures or thorough inspections | automatic |
| 10 | It was not ethical for Engineer Intern A to fail to report to Engineer B that the defect had been missed for at least five years. | outcome |
Sequential action-event relationships. See Analysis tab for action-obligation links.
- Defect Reporting Omission Historical Records Review
- Historical Records Review Selective Information Disclosure
- Selective Information Disclosure Defect Discovery
Key Takeaways
- Safety obligations and duty to disclose material facts supersede hierarchical constraints and supervision structures when public welfare is at stake.
- Engineer interns cannot use their subordinate status or supervision requirements as justification for withholding critical safety information from other engineers.
- The duty to report defects that have persisted for years creates an immediate ethical obligation that transcends budget limitations, staffing constraints, or potential embarrassment from supervisory failures.