Enhanced Temporal Review

Overview View Extraction

Draft Continue to Step 4

Extraction Complete

Total Entities: 19

Actions: 7

Events: 3

Causal Chains: 3

Allen Relations: 5

Timeline: 10

Timeline Overview

Note: The timeline includes only actions and events with clear temporal markers that could be sequenced chronologically.

Timeline Elements: 10

Actions on Timeline: 7 (of 7 extracted)

Events on Timeline: 3 (of 3 extracted)

Temporal Markers

6 years ago to recent 1 elements
7 years ago 1 elements
Recent past 1 elements
Present 4 elements
Recent past (within last year) 1 elements
After Engineer A's investigation 1 elements
After findings acknowledgment and refusal 1 elements

Temporal Consistency Check

Valid

Extracted Actions (7)

Volitional professional decisions with intentions and ethical context

Description: Engineer A conducted investigation into the contracting practice allegations brought by Engineer B.

Temporal Marker: Present

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Verify facts and assess compliance violations

Fulfills Obligations:

Due diligence
Professional competence
Fact-finding responsibility

Guided By Principles:

Thoroughness
Objectivity
Professional integrity

Required Capabilities:

Investigation skills Legal knowledge Contract analysis

Within Competence: Yes

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Professional responsibility to investigate credible allegations and determine facts

Ethical Tension: Thorough investigation vs organizational harmony and efficiency

Learning Significance: Shows importance of taking whistleblower reports seriously and conducting proper investigations

Stakes: Investigation integrity, professional credibility, organizational accountability

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:

Dismiss concerns without investigation
Delegate investigation to potentially biased party

Narrative Role: rising_action

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/6#",
    "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/6#Action_Violation_Investigation",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Dismiss concerns without investigation",
    "Delegate investigation to potentially biased party"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Professional responsibility to investigate credible allegations and determine facts",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Violations continue unaddressed",
    "Compromised investigation integrity"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Shows importance of taking whistleblower reports seriously and conducting proper investigations",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Thorough investigation vs organizational harmony and efficiency",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Investigation integrity, professional credibility, organizational accountability",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A conducted investigation into the contracting practice allegations brought by Engineer B.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Potential conflict with superiors",
    "Discovery of violations"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Due diligence",
    "Professional competence",
    "Fact-finding responsibility"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Thoroughness",
    "Objectivity",
    "Professional integrity"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A (Assistant City Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Organizational harmony vs truth-seeking",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Prioritized professional investigation duty"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Verify facts and assess compliance violations",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Investigation skills",
    "Legal knowledge",
    "Contract analysis"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Present",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Violation Investigation"
}

Description: City D hired Firm X through proper RFQ process with 10-year extension options.

Temporal Marker: 7 years ago

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Establish long-term engineering services contract

Fulfills Obligations:

Legal compliance
Fiduciary duty to public

Guided By Principles:

Transparency
Fair competition

Required Capabilities:

Procurement knowledge Contract management

Within Competence: Yes

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Following established procurement procedures to ensure fair competition and legal compliance

Ethical Tension: Administrative efficiency vs transparent competition

Learning Significance: Demonstrates importance of proper procurement procedures in maintaining public trust

Stakes: Legal compliance, fair competition, public trust in government contracting

Narrative Role: rising_action

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/6#",
    "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/6#Action_Initial_Contracting_Decision",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Direct award without competition",
    "Informal vendor selection"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Following established procurement procedures to ensure fair competition and legal compliance",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Legal violations from start",
    "Reduced vendor pool and potential favoritism"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Demonstrates importance of proper procurement procedures in maintaining public trust",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Administrative efficiency vs transparent competition",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": false,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Legal compliance, fair competition, public trust in government contracting",
  "proeth:description": "City D hired Firm X through proper RFQ process with 10-year extension options.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Long-term commitment limiting future competition"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Legal compliance",
    "Fiduciary duty to public"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Transparency",
    "Fair competition"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "City D officials",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Administrative efficiency vs ongoing competition",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Chose stability with proper process"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Establish long-term engineering services contract",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Procurement knowledge",
    "Contract management"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "7 years ago",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Initial Contracting Decision"
}

Description: City D awarded first three contracts to Firm Z through proper competitive RFQ processes over 6 years.

Temporal Marker: 6 years ago to recent

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Secure engineering services through fair competition

Fulfills Obligations:

Legal compliance
Fair competition
Public accountability

Guided By Principles:

Transparency
Merit-based selection

Required Capabilities:

Procurement expertise Vendor evaluation

Within Competence: Yes

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Maintaining competitive procurement standards and legal compliance for public contracts

Ethical Tension: Administrative burden of RFQ processes vs ensuring fair competition

Learning Significance: Shows how proper procedures can work effectively when consistently applied

Stakes: Procurement law compliance, vendor fairness, public fund stewardship

Narrative Role: rising_action

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/6#",
    "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/6#Action_Competitive_Contract_Awards",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Sole source awards to expedite",
    "Informal competitive process"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Maintaining competitive procurement standards and legal compliance for public contracts",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Earlier legal violations",
    "Less transparent selection process"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Shows how proper procedures can work effectively when consistently applied",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Administrative burden of RFQ processes vs ensuring fair competition",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": false,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Procurement law compliance, vendor fairness, public fund stewardship",
  "proeth:description": "City D awarded first three contracts to Firm Z through proper competitive RFQ processes over 6 years.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Administrative burden of repeated RFQ processes"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Legal compliance",
    "Fair competition",
    "Public accountability"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Transparency",
    "Merit-based selection"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "City D officials",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Administrative efficiency vs competitive fairness",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Prioritized legal compliance and fairness"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Secure engineering services through fair competition",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Procurement expertise",
    "Vendor evaluation"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "6 years ago to recent",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Competitive Contract Awards"
}

Description: City Engineer awarded two recent contracts to Firm Z without required RFQ processes, violating procurement thresholds.

Temporal Marker: Recent past

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Expedite contract execution with known vendor

Guided By Principles:

Expediency over legality

Required Capabilities:

Legal knowledge Procurement processes

Within Competence: Yes

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Expediting contract awards to avoid administrative delays and maintain project schedules

Ethical Tension: Operational efficiency vs legal compliance and transparency

Learning Significance: Critical teaching moment about how shortcuts undermine public trust and legal standards

Stakes: Legal liability, procurement integrity, public trust, professional reputation

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:

Conduct proper RFQ despite delays
Seek emergency procurement authorization

Narrative Role: inciting_incident

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/6#",
    "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/6#Action_Illegal_Contract_Awards",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Conduct proper RFQ despite delays",
    "Seek emergency procurement authorization"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Expediting contract awards to avoid administrative delays and maintain project schedules",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Project delays but legal compliance",
    "Transparent process with documented justification"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Critical teaching moment about how shortcuts undermine public trust and legal standards",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Operational efficiency vs legal compliance and transparency",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "inciting_incident",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Legal liability, procurement integrity, public trust, professional reputation",
  "proeth:description": "City Engineer awarded two recent contracts to Firm Z without required RFQ processes, violating procurement thresholds.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Legal violations",
    "Unfair competition"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Expediency over legality"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "City Engineer",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Legal compliance vs operational convenience",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Prioritized convenience over legal compliance"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Expedite contract execution with known vendor",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Legal knowledge",
    "Procurement processes"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Recent past",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Legal compliance",
    "Fiduciary duty",
    "Fair dealing",
    "Public trust"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Illegal Contract Awards"
}

Description: Engineer B reported concerns about improper contracting practices to Engineer A.

Temporal Marker: Present

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Expose and correct procurement violations

Fulfills Obligations:

Professional responsibility
Public welfare
Legal compliance

Guided By Principles:

Integrity
Accountability
Public interest

Required Capabilities:

Knowledge of violations Professional courage

Within Competence: Yes

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Professional duty to report suspected misconduct and protect public interest

Ethical Tension: Loyalty to organization vs professional integrity and public accountability

Learning Significance: Demonstrates courage required for ethical whistleblowing and peer responsibility

Stakes: Professional reputation, workplace relationships, public accountability

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:

Report directly to external authorities
Remain silent and avoid conflict

Narrative Role: rising_action

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/6#",
    "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/6#Action_Whistleblowing_Report",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Report directly to external authorities",
    "Remain silent and avoid conflict"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Professional duty to report suspected misconduct and protect public interest",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Potential escalation and investigation",
    "Continued violations and complicity"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Demonstrates courage required for ethical whistleblowing and peer responsibility",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Loyalty to organization vs professional integrity and public accountability",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Professional reputation, workplace relationships, public accountability",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B reported concerns about improper contracting practices to Engineer A.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Potential retaliation",
    "Workplace conflict"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Professional responsibility",
    "Public welfare",
    "Legal compliance"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Integrity",
    "Accountability",
    "Public interest"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer B",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Employee loyalty vs professional ethics",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Prioritized ethical obligations over personal risk"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Expose and correct procurement violations",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Knowledge of violations",
    "Professional courage"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Present",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Whistleblowing Report"
}

Description: Engineer A reported investigation findings and recommended improvements to the City Engineer.

Temporal Marker: Present

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Inform superior and prompt corrective action

Fulfills Obligations:

Reporting responsibility
Professional honesty
Duty to employer

Guided By Principles:

Transparency
Accountability
Professional integrity

Required Capabilities:

Report writing Professional communication Legal analysis

Within Competence: Yes

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Professional duty to report findings truthfully and recommend corrective measures

Ethical Tension: Truth-telling vs potential organizational disruption and career impact

Learning Significance: Demonstrates integrity in reporting uncomfortable truths and proposing solutions

Stakes: Professional integrity, organizational reform, legal compliance

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:

Minimize findings to avoid conflict
Report externally before internal reporting

Narrative Role: climax

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/6#",
    "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/6#Action_Findings_Report",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Minimize findings to avoid conflict",
    "Report externally before internal reporting"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Professional duty to report findings truthfully and recommend corrective measures",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Enabling continued violations",
    "Potential organizational retaliation and escalation"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Demonstrates integrity in reporting uncomfortable truths and proposing solutions",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Truth-telling vs potential organizational disruption and career impact",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "climax",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Professional integrity, organizational reform, legal compliance",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A reported investigation findings and recommended improvements to the City Engineer.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Superior\u0027s resistance",
    "Potential organizational conflict"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Reporting responsibility",
    "Professional honesty",
    "Duty to employer"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Transparency",
    "Accountability",
    "Professional integrity"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A (Assistant City Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Organizational loyalty vs legal compliance",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Followed proper reporting channels first"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Inform superior and prompt corrective action",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Report writing",
    "Professional communication",
    "Legal analysis"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Present",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Findings Report"
}

Description: City Engineer acknowledged violations but refused to take corrective action despite Engineer A's recommendations.

Temporal Marker: Present

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Maintain status quo and avoid disruption

Guided By Principles:

Organizational convenience over legal compliance

Required Capabilities:

Leadership authority Legal compliance knowledge Corrective action implementation

Within Competence: Yes

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Avoiding disruption, protecting organizational relationships, maintaining status quo

Ethical Tension: Organizational stability vs legal compliance and ethical leadership

Learning Significance: Critical failure of leadership responsibility and ethical decision-making under pressure

Stakes: Continued legal violations, organizational culture, public trust, Engineer A's next decisions

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:

Implement recommended corrections
Seek legal counsel before deciding

Narrative Role: falling_action

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/6#",
    "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/6#Action_Corrective_Action_Refusal",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Implement recommended corrections",
    "Seek legal counsel before deciding"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Avoiding disruption, protecting organizational relationships, maintaining status quo",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Legal compliance restored and trust rebuilt",
    "Informed decision-making with proper guidance"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Critical failure of leadership responsibility and ethical decision-making under pressure",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Organizational stability vs legal compliance and ethical leadership",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "falling_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Continued legal violations, organizational culture, public trust, Engineer A\u0027s next decisions",
  "proeth:description": "City Engineer acknowledged violations but refused to take corrective action despite Engineer A\u0027s recommendations.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Continued legal violations",
    "Potential escalation",
    "Professional liability"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Organizational convenience over legal compliance"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "City Engineer",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Legal compliance vs operational convenience",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Prioritized convenience despite legal violations"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Maintain status quo and avoid disruption",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Leadership authority",
    "Legal compliance knowledge",
    "Corrective action implementation"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Present",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Legal compliance",
    "Fiduciary duty",
    "Professional responsibility",
    "Corrective action duty"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Corrective Action Refusal"
}

Extracted Events (3)

Occurrences that trigger ethical considerations and state changes

Description: Two recent contracts were awarded without following required RFQ processes, creating legal violations of municipal procurement laws.

Temporal Marker: Recent past (within last year)

Activates Constraints:

Legal_Compliance_Constraint
Public_Trust_Constraint

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Anxiety for Engineer A discovering violations; concern for Engineer B vindicated; defensiveness from City Engineer; potential public outrage if exposed

Stakeholder Consequences:

city_government: Legal liability, potential lawsuits, loss of public trust
engineer_a: Professional obligation to address violations, career risk
firm_z: Potentially illegitimate contract benefits, reputation risk
public: Compromised procurement fairness, misuse of tax dollars
competing_firms: Unfair exclusion from bidding opportunities

Learning Moment: Demonstrates how procedural violations create systemic integrity failures and legal exposure; shows importance of procurement transparency

Ethical Implications: Reveals tension between efficiency and fairness; demonstrates impact of procedural violations on competitive integrity; shows how institutional corruption develops through normalized rule-breaking

Discussion Prompts:

What are the broader implications of procurement law violations for public trust?
How do procedural shortcuts undermine fair competition and professional integrity?
What systemic factors might lead officials to bypass required processes?

Crisis / Turning Point Tension: high Pacing: escalation

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/6#",
    "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/6#Event_Procurement_Law_Violations",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": true,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "What are the broader implications of procurement law violations for public trust?",
    "How do procedural shortcuts undermine fair competition and professional integrity?",
    "What systemic factors might lead officials to bypass required processes?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "high",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Anxiety for Engineer A discovering violations; concern for Engineer B vindicated; defensiveness from City Engineer; potential public outrage if exposed",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals tension between efficiency and fairness; demonstrates impact of procedural violations on competitive integrity; shows how institutional corruption develops through normalized rule-breaking",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Demonstrates how procedural violations create systemic integrity failures and legal exposure; shows importance of procurement transparency",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "escalation",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "city_government": "Legal liability, potential lawsuits, loss of public trust",
    "competing_firms": "Unfair exclusion from bidding opportunities",
    "engineer_a": "Professional obligation to address violations, career risk",
    "firm_z": "Potentially illegitimate contract benefits, reputation risk",
    "public": "Compromised procurement fairness, misuse of tax dollars"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Legal_Compliance_Constraint",
    "Public_Trust_Constraint"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/6#Action_Illegal_Contract_Awards",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "City exposed to legal liability; procurement integrity compromised; corrective action needed",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Legal_Violation_Reporting",
    "Corrective_Action_Required",
    "Process_Remediation"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Two recent contracts were awarded without following required RFQ processes, creating legal violations of municipal procurement laws.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "high",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Recent past (within last year)",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "high",
  "rdfs:label": "Procurement Law Violations"
}

Description: Systematic investigation reveals pattern of legal violations, confirming whistleblower allegations and establishing scope of procurement improprieties.

Temporal Marker: After Engineer A's investigation

Activates Constraints:

Professional_Reporting_Constraint
Evidence_Based_Action_Constraint

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Validation for Engineer B's concerns; professional satisfaction for Engineer A in thorough work; mounting pressure on City Engineer; concern for institutional reputation

Stakeholder Consequences:

engineer_a: Professional credibility established, but now faces reporting dilemma
engineer_b: Vindication of concerns, but still vulnerable to retaliation
city_engineer: Exposed violations create accountability pressure and career risk
city_government: Documented evidence increases legal and political exposure
public_interest: Professional investigation serves transparency and accountability

Learning Moment: Shows importance of thorough, professional investigation in ethics cases; demonstrates how evidence gathering creates accountability pressure

Ethical Implications: Demonstrates professional duty to seek truth and document findings; reveals tension between loyalty to institution and professional integrity; shows how evidence creates moral authority

Discussion Prompts:

How does documented evidence change the ethical obligations of professionals?
What role should junior engineers play in investigating institutional problems?
How can organizations create systems that encourage rather than discourage ethical investigation?

Tension: medium Pacing: slow_burn

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/6#",
    "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/6#Event_Investigation_Findings_Discovery",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "How does documented evidence change the ethical obligations of professionals?",
    "What role should junior engineers play in investigating institutional problems?",
    "How can organizations create systems that encourage rather than discourage ethical investigation?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "medium",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Validation for Engineer B\u0027s concerns; professional satisfaction for Engineer A in thorough work; mounting pressure on City Engineer; concern for institutional reputation",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Demonstrates professional duty to seek truth and document findings; reveals tension between loyalty to institution and professional integrity; shows how evidence creates moral authority",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Shows importance of thorough, professional investigation in ethics cases; demonstrates how evidence gathering creates accountability pressure",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "slow_burn",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "city_engineer": "Exposed violations create accountability pressure and career risk",
    "city_government": "Documented evidence increases legal and political exposure",
    "engineer_a": "Professional credibility established, but now faces reporting dilemma",
    "engineer_b": "Vindication of concerns, but still vulnerable to retaliation",
    "public_interest": "Professional investigation serves transparency and accountability"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Professional_Reporting_Constraint",
    "Evidence_Based_Action_Constraint"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/6#Action_Violation_Investigation",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Violations confirmed and documented; evidence base established; reporting obligations triggered",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Evidence_Reporting_Required",
    "Corrective_Recommendation_Obligation",
    "Professional_Documentation_Duty"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Systematic investigation reveals pattern of legal violations, confirming whistleblower allegations and establishing scope of procurement improprieties.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "medium",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After Engineer A\u0027s investigation",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "high",
  "rdfs:label": "Investigation Findings Discovery"
}

Description: City Engineer's refusal to take corrective action despite acknowledged violations creates institutional deadlock and escalates ethical crisis.

Temporal Marker: After findings acknowledgment and refusal

Activates Constraints:

Whistleblower_Protection_Constraint
Professional_Independence_Constraint

Scenario Metadata

Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Frustration and moral distress for Engineer A; vindication mixed with fear for Engineer B; defensiveness and possible panic for City Engineer; betrayal felt by affected stakeholders

Stakeholder Consequences:

engineer_a: Forced into whistleblower role with career risks but professional duty
engineer_b: Vulnerable to retaliation but moral support from investigation
city_engineer: Professional and legal accountability crisis, potential termination
city_government: Governance failure exposed, political and legal consequences
public: Institutional failure revealed, trust in local government damaged
engineering_profession: Professional standards and independence tested

Learning Moment: Demonstrates what happens when institutional hierarchy fails ethical obligations; shows when external reporting becomes necessary; reveals courage required for professional integrity

Ethical Implications: Reveals fundamental tension between institutional authority and professional independence; demonstrates when whistleblowing becomes ethical imperative; shows how institutional corruption forces individual moral courage

Discussion Prompts:

At what point do professional obligations override institutional loyalty?
How should engineers prepare for situations where supervisors refuse to address violations?
What protections and support systems do professionals need when institutions fail ethical duties?

Crisis / Turning Point Tension: high Pacing: crisis

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/6#",
    "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/6#Event_Institutional_Impasse_Creation",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": true,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "At what point do professional obligations override institutional loyalty?",
    "How should engineers prepare for situations where supervisors refuse to address violations?",
    "What protections and support systems do professionals need when institutions fail ethical duties?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "high",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Frustration and moral distress for Engineer A; vindication mixed with fear for Engineer B; defensiveness and possible panic for City Engineer; betrayal felt by affected stakeholders",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals fundamental tension between institutional authority and professional independence; demonstrates when whistleblowing becomes ethical imperative; shows how institutional corruption forces individual moral courage",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Demonstrates what happens when institutional hierarchy fails ethical obligations; shows when external reporting becomes necessary; reveals courage required for professional integrity",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "crisis",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "city_engineer": "Professional and legal accountability crisis, potential termination",
    "city_government": "Governance failure exposed, political and legal consequences",
    "engineer_a": "Forced into whistleblower role with career risks but professional duty",
    "engineer_b": "Vulnerable to retaliation but moral support from investigation",
    "engineering_profession": "Professional standards and independence tested",
    "public": "Institutional failure revealed, trust in local government damaged"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Whistleblower_Protection_Constraint",
    "Professional_Independence_Constraint"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/6#Action_Corrective_Action_Refusal",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Internal resolution failed; external reporting obligations activated; professional independence tested; whistleblower protections needed",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Higher_Authority_Reporting",
    "Professional_Society_Notification",
    "Legal_Consultation_Required"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "City Engineer\u0027s refusal to take corrective action despite acknowledged violations creates institutional deadlock and escalates ethical crisis.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "high",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After findings acknowledgment and refusal",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "critical",
  "rdfs:label": "Institutional Impasse Creation"
}

Causal Chains (3)

NESS test analysis: Necessary Element of Sufficient Set

Causal Language: City Engineer awarded two recent contracts to Firm Z without required RFQ processes, violating procurement laws

Necessary Factors (NESS):

City Engineer's decision to bypass RFQ process
Existence of procurement laws requiring competitive bidding
Authority to award contracts without proper oversight

Sufficient Factors:

City Engineer's unilateral decision to ignore procurement requirements

Counterfactual Test: Without the City Engineer's decision to bypass RFQ processes, no procurement law violations would have occurred

Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: City Engineer
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:

Illegal Contract Awards
City Engineer decides to award contracts without following RFQ process
Procurement Law Violations
Legal violations created by bypassing required competitive bidding

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/6#",
    "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/6#CausalChain_570e1df4",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "City Engineer awarded two recent contracts to Firm Z without required RFQ processes, violating procurement laws",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "City Engineer decides to award contracts without following RFQ process",
      "proeth:element": "Illegal Contract Awards",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Legal violations created by bypassing required competitive bidding",
      "proeth:element": "Procurement Law Violations",
      "proeth:step": 2
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Illegal Contract Awards",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the City Engineer\u0027s decision to bypass RFQ processes, no procurement law violations would have occurred",
  "proeth:effect": "Procurement Law Violations",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "City Engineer\u0027s decision to bypass RFQ process",
    "Existence of procurement laws requiring competitive bidding",
    "Authority to award contracts without proper oversight"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "City Engineer",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "City Engineer\u0027s unilateral decision to ignore procurement requirements"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer B reported concerns about improper contracting practices to Engineer A, which led to Engineer A conducting investigation into the contracting practice allegations

Necessary Factors (NESS):

Engineer B's decision to report violations
Engineer A's willingness to investigate
Existence of actual violations to discover

Sufficient Factors:

Whistleblowing report + thorough investigation + actual violations present

Counterfactual Test: Without Engineer B's report, the systematic investigation and discovery of violations would not have occurred

Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer B (whistleblower) and Engineer A (investigator)
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:

Whistleblowing Report
Engineer B reports concerns about improper contracting to Engineer A
Violation Investigation
Engineer A conducts systematic investigation into allegations
Investigation Findings Discovery
Investigation reveals pattern of legal violations and confirms allegations

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/6#",
    "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/6#CausalChain_79e8951f",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer B reported concerns about improper contracting practices to Engineer A, which led to Engineer A conducting investigation into the contracting practice allegations",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B reports concerns about improper contracting to Engineer A",
      "proeth:element": "Whistleblowing Report",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A conducts systematic investigation into allegations",
      "proeth:element": "Violation Investigation",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Investigation reveals pattern of legal violations and confirms allegations",
      "proeth:element": "Investigation Findings Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Whistleblowing Report",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without Engineer B\u0027s report, the systematic investigation and discovery of violations would not have occurred",
  "proeth:effect": "Investigation Findings Discovery",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer B\u0027s decision to report violations",
    "Engineer A\u0027s willingness to investigate",
    "Existence of actual violations to discover"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer B (whistleblower) and Engineer A (investigator)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Whistleblowing report + thorough investigation + actual violations present"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: City Engineer acknowledged violations but refused to take corrective action despite Engineer A's recommendations, creating institutional impasse

Necessary Factors (NESS):

City Engineer's acknowledgment of violations
Engineer A's corrective action recommendations
City Engineer's refusal to implement corrections
City Engineer's authority to block remedial measures

Sufficient Factors:

Acknowledged violations + recommended solutions + refusal to act by authority figure

Counterfactual Test: Without the City Engineer's refusal to act, corrective measures could have been implemented and impasse avoided

Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: City Engineer
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:

Investigation Findings Discovery
Systematic violations documented and confirmed
Findings Report
Engineer A reports findings and recommends corrective action
Corrective Action Refusal
City Engineer acknowledges violations but refuses to implement corrections
Institutional Impasse Creation
Deadlock created between ethical obligations and institutional authority

RDF JSON-LD

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/6#",
    "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/6#CausalChain_c70d778e",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "City Engineer acknowledged violations but refused to take corrective action despite Engineer A\u0027s recommendations, creating institutional impasse",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Systematic violations documented and confirmed",
      "proeth:element": "Investigation Findings Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A reports findings and recommends corrective action",
      "proeth:element": "Findings Report",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "City Engineer acknowledges violations but refuses to implement corrections",
      "proeth:element": "Corrective Action Refusal",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Deadlock created between ethical obligations and institutional authority",
      "proeth:element": "Institutional Impasse Creation",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Corrective Action Refusal",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the City Engineer\u0027s refusal to act, corrective measures could have been implemented and impasse avoided",
  "proeth:effect": "Institutional Impasse Creation",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "City Engineer\u0027s acknowledgment of violations",
    "Engineer A\u0027s corrective action recommendations",
    "City Engineer\u0027s refusal to implement corrections",
    "City Engineer\u0027s authority to block remedial measures"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "City Engineer",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Acknowledged violations + recommended solutions + refusal to act by authority figure"
  ],
  "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
Engineer B's concerns	before Entity1 is before Entity2	Engineer A's investigation	`time:before` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before	Engineer A acknowledges the value of the RFQ and QBS processes in securing engineering services for ...
Engineer A joining City D	before Entity1 is before Entity2	Engineer B approaching Engineer A	`time:before` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before	Shortly after starting, Engineer A is approached by Engineer B
Firm X RFQ process	before Entity1 is before Entity2	all Firm Z contracts	`time:before` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before	City D hired Firm X seven years ago through an RFQ process... City D has entered into five separate ...
first three Firm Z contracts	before Entity1 is before Entity2	two most recent Firm Z contracts	`time:before` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before	Records show the first three contracts were awarded through a competitive RFQ process... However, th...
US Justice Department actions (1977)	before Entity1 is before Entity2	Supreme Court ruling (1978)	`time:before` http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before	actions by the US Justice Department, in 1977... and the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in National Soc...

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.

PASS 3: Temporal Dynamics

Extraction Complete

Timeline Overview

Temporal Markers

Temporal Consistency Check

Extracted Actions (7)

Violation Investigation Engineer A (Assistant City Engineer)

Fulfills Obligations:

Guided By Principles:

Required Capabilities:

Scenario Metadata

Initial Contracting Decision City D officials

Fulfills Obligations:

Guided By Principles:

Required Capabilities:

Scenario Metadata

Competitive Contract Awards City D officials

Fulfills Obligations:

Guided By Principles:

Required Capabilities:

Scenario Metadata

Illegal Contract Awards City Engineer

Guided By Principles:

Required Capabilities:

Scenario Metadata

Whistleblowing Report Engineer B

Fulfills Obligations:

Guided By Principles:

Required Capabilities:

Scenario Metadata

Findings Report Engineer A (Assistant City Engineer)

Fulfills Obligations:

Guided By Principles:

Required Capabilities:

Scenario Metadata

Corrective Action Refusal City Engineer

Guided By Principles:

Required Capabilities:

Scenario Metadata

Extracted Events (3)

Procurement Law Violations

Activates Constraints:

Scenario Metadata

Investigation Findings Discovery

Activates Constraints:

Scenario Metadata

Institutional Impasse Creation

Activates Constraints:

Scenario Metadata

Causal Chains (3)

Illegal Contract Awards Procurement Law Violations

Necessary Factors (NESS):

Sufficient Factors:

Responsibility Attribution:

Causal Sequence:

Whistleblowing Report Investigation Findings Discovery

Necessary Factors (NESS):

Sufficient Factors:

Responsibility Attribution:

Causal Sequence:

Corrective Action Refusal Institutional Impasse Creation

Necessary Factors (NESS):

Sufficient Factors:

Responsibility Attribution:

Causal Sequence:

Allen Temporal Relations (5)

About Allen Relations & OWL-Time