Overview View Extraction
Draft Continue to Step 4

PASS 3: Temporal Dynamics

Case 60: Misrepresentation of Qualifications

Extraction Complete
Total Entities: 13
Actions: 3
Events: 3
Causal Chains: 3
Allen Relations: 3
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
  • Initial contact phase 2 elements
  • Report preparation phase 1 elements
  • Report signing phase 1 elements
  • Report completion and filing 1 elements
  • Upon service commencement in State M 1 elements
Temporal Consistency Check
Valid
Extracted Actions (3)
Volitional professional decisions with intentions and ethical context

Description: Engineer A agreed to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony in State M after being contacted by Attorney X.

Temporal Marker: Initial contact phase

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Provide expert consultation services

Fulfills Obligations:
  • Professional service
Guided By Principles:
  • Professional competence
  • Legal compliance
Required Capabilities:
Forensic engineering expertise Expert testimony skills
Within Competence: Yes
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Attracted by lucrative expert witness opportunity and confident in forensic engineering expertise despite licensing gap

Ethical Tension: Professional competence and earning potential vs legal compliance and jurisdictional authority

Learning Significance: Understanding the fundamental requirement to verify jurisdictional licensing requirements before accepting professional assignments

Stakes: Legal validity of testimony, professional reputation, potential sanctions, case outcome for client

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:
  • Decline pending licensure verification
  • Accept conditionally while pursuing State M license
  • Refer to licensed State M engineer

Narrative Role: inciting_incident

RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/60#",
    "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/60#Action_Accept_Expert_Services_Contract",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Decline pending licensure verification",
    "Accept conditionally while pursuing State M license",
    "Refer to licensed State M engineer"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Attracted by lucrative expert witness opportunity and confident in forensic engineering expertise despite licensing gap",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Lost income but compliance maintained",
    "Delayed start but legal compliance achieved",
    "Relationship preserved while avoiding violation"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Understanding the fundamental requirement to verify jurisdictional licensing requirements before accepting professional assignments",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Professional competence and earning potential vs legal compliance and jurisdictional authority",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "inciting_incident",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Legal validity of testimony, professional reputation, potential sanctions, case outcome for client",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A agreed to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony in State M after being contacted by Attorney X.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Potential licensing compliance issues"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Professional service"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Professional competence",
    "Legal compliance"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A (Expert Consultant)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Professional service vs Legal compliance",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Accepted engagement despite regulatory constraints"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Provide expert consultation services",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Forensic engineering expertise",
    "Expert testimony skills"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Initial contact phase",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Legal compliance",
    "Jurisdictional practice requirements"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Accept Expert Services Contract"
}

Description: Engineer A deliberately chose not to include P.E. designation in the signature block of the expert report.

Temporal Marker: Report preparation phase

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Avoid misrepresenting licensure status in State M

Fulfills Obligations:
  • Truthfulness
  • Avoid misrepresentation
Guided By Principles:
  • Honesty
  • Transparency
Required Capabilities:
Understanding of professional credentials Legal document preparation
Within Competence: Yes
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Attempting to avoid explicit misrepresentation while not drawing attention to unlicensed status

Ethical Tension: Legal requirement for transparency vs desire to maintain credibility and avoid case withdrawal

Learning Significance: Learning that omission of required credentials can be as problematic as false claims

Stakes: Professional integrity, legal standing of expert report, potential perjury implications

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:
  • Include full licensing disclosure
  • Withdraw from case before signing
  • Consult with attorney about requirements

Narrative Role: rising_action

RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/60#",
    "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/60#Action_Exclude_P_E__Designation_Decision",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Include full licensing disclosure",
    "Withdraw from case before signing",
    "Consult with attorney about requirements"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Attempting to avoid explicit misrepresentation while not drawing attention to unlicensed status",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Transparent compliance but possible disqualification",
    "Professional integrity maintained",
    "Proper guidance obtained before proceeding"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Learning that omission of required credentials can be as problematic as false claims",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Legal requirement for transparency vs desire to maintain credibility and avoid case withdrawal",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Professional integrity, legal standing of expert report, potential perjury implications",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A deliberately chose not to include P.E. designation in the signature block of the expert report.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "May obscure engineering qualifications"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Truthfulness",
    "Avoid misrepresentation"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Honesty",
    "Transparency"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A (Expert Consultant)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Credential accuracy vs Complete disclosure",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Prioritized avoiding misrepresentation over full credential disclosure"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Avoid misrepresenting licensure status in State M",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Understanding of professional credentials",
    "Legal document preparation"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Report preparation phase",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Complete disclosure"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Exclude P.E. Designation Decision"
}

Description: Engineer A signed the expert report using 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' title instead of P.E. designation.

Temporal Marker: Report signing phase

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Establish credibility while avoiding P.E. misrepresentation

Fulfills Obligations:
  • Professional identification
Guided By Principles:
  • Professional competence demonstration
  • Regulatory compliance
Required Capabilities:
Professional credential understanding Expert report preparation
Within Competence: Yes
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Leveraging legitimate forensic credentials to establish expertise while circumventing licensing disclosure requirements

Ethical Tension: Authentic professional qualifications vs misleading substitution for required jurisdictional authorization

Learning Significance: Understanding that alternative credentials cannot substitute for mandatory licensing requirements in legal proceedings

Stakes: Validity of expert testimony, potential contempt of court, professional sanctions, case dismissal

Narrative Role: climax

RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/60#",
    "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/60#Action_Use_Alternative_Credential_Title",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Sign with full licensing status disclosure",
    "Include both credentials and licensing limitation",
    "Refuse to sign without proper credentials"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Leveraging legitimate forensic credentials to establish expertise while circumventing licensing disclosure requirements",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Complete transparency and legal compliance",
    "Honest disclosure allowing informed decisions",
    "Maintained professional integrity despite financial loss"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Understanding that alternative credentials cannot substitute for mandatory licensing requirements in legal proceedings",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Authentic professional qualifications vs misleading substitution for required jurisdictional authorization",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": false,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "climax",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Validity of expert testimony, potential contempt of court, professional sanctions, case dismissal",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A signed the expert report using \u0027Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering\u0027 title instead of P.E. designation.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "May still imply engineering practice authorization"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Professional identification"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Professional competence demonstration",
    "Regulatory compliance"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A (Expert Consultant)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Credibility establishment vs Regulatory compliance",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Chose engineering-related credential to maintain expertise credibility"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Establish credibility while avoiding P.E. misrepresentation",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Professional credential understanding",
    "Expert report preparation"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Report signing phase",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Clear practice boundary definition",
    "Licensing compliance"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Use Alternative Credential Title"
}
Extracted Events (3)
Occurrences that trigger ethical considerations and state changes

Description: Legal agreement established between Attorney X and Engineer A for expert testimony services in State M, creating professional service relationship.

Temporal Marker: Initial contact phase

Activates Constraints:
  • Professional_Service_Standards
  • State_M_Licensing_Requirements
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Professional confidence for Engineer A; relief for Attorney X in securing expert; routine business transaction atmosphere

Stakeholder Consequences:
  • engineer_a: Professional obligations activated, potential income from services
  • attorney_x: Expert support secured for case preparation
  • legal_system: Expert testimony process initiated
  • state_m_board: Jurisdiction triggered over engineering practice

Learning Moment: Demonstrates how professional obligations activate automatically upon service agreement, regardless of engineer's awareness

Ethical Implications: Reveals how professional practice crosses jurisdictional boundaries; shows that contractual agreements automatically invoke regulatory frameworks

Discussion Prompts:
  • What due diligence should engineers perform before accepting out-of-state work?
  • How do contractual relationships create ethical obligations beyond personal preferences?
  • What is the engineer's responsibility to understand jurisdictional requirements?
Tension: low Pacing: slow_burn
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/60#",
    "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/60#Event_Expert_Services_Contract_Formation",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "What due diligence should engineers perform before accepting out-of-state work?",
    "How do contractual relationships create ethical obligations beyond personal preferences?",
    "What is the engineer\u0027s responsibility to understand jurisdictional requirements?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "low",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Professional confidence for Engineer A; relief for Attorney X in securing expert; routine business transaction atmosphere",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals how professional practice crosses jurisdictional boundaries; shows that contractual agreements automatically invoke regulatory frameworks",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Demonstrates how professional obligations activate automatically upon service agreement, regardless of engineer\u0027s awareness",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "slow_burn",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "attorney_x": "Expert support secured for case preparation",
    "engineer_a": "Professional obligations activated, potential income from services",
    "legal_system": "Expert testimony process initiated",
    "state_m_board": "Jurisdiction triggered over engineering practice"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Professional_Service_Standards",
    "State_M_Licensing_Requirements"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/60#Action_Accept_Expert_Services_Contract",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Engineer A now bound by State M expert testimony requirements; professional relationship established with legal obligations",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Verify_Licensing_Requirements",
    "Provide_Competent_Service",
    "Maintain_Professional_Standards"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Legal agreement established between Attorney X and Engineer A for expert testimony services in State M, creating professional service relationship.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "routine",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Initial contact phase",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "low",
  "rdfs:label": "Expert Services Contract Formation"
}

Description: Engineer A's expert report becomes official document with non-compliant credential designation, creating potential regulatory violation record.

Temporal Marker: Report completion and filing

Activates Constraints:
  • Regulatory_Compliance_Violation
  • Professional_Misrepresentation_Risk
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: False confidence for Engineer A; potential concern for Attorney X if discovered; anxiety for legal system integrity

Stakeholder Consequences:
  • engineer_a: Professional reputation at risk, potential disciplinary action, legal liability exposure
  • attorney_x: Case credibility compromised, potential malpractice exposure if expert unqualified
  • opposing_counsel: Potential grounds for challenging expert qualification
  • state_m_board: Regulatory violation to investigate and address
  • legal_system: Expert testimony standards potentially compromised

Learning Moment: Shows how credential misrepresentation creates cascading risks for multiple stakeholders; demonstrates permanent nature of professional document violations

Ethical Implications: Reveals tension between professional convenience and regulatory compliance; demonstrates how individual violations affect system integrity; shows intersection of legal and engineering ethics

Discussion Prompts:
  • How does credential misrepresentation affect the integrity of expert testimony?
  • What are the broader consequences when professionals circumvent licensing requirements?
  • Should the attorney bear responsibility for verifying expert credentials?
Crisis / Turning Point Tension: medium Pacing: escalation
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/60#",
    "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/60#Event_Expert_Report_Publication",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": true,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "How does credential misrepresentation affect the integrity of expert testimony?",
    "What are the broader consequences when professionals circumvent licensing requirements?",
    "Should the attorney bear responsibility for verifying expert credentials?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "medium",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "False confidence for Engineer A; potential concern for Attorney X if discovered; anxiety for legal system integrity",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals tension between professional convenience and regulatory compliance; demonstrates how individual violations affect system integrity; shows intersection of legal and engineering ethics",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Shows how credential misrepresentation creates cascading risks for multiple stakeholders; demonstrates permanent nature of professional document violations",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "escalation",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "attorney_x": "Case credibility compromised, potential malpractice exposure if expert unqualified",
    "engineer_a": "Professional reputation at risk, potential disciplinary action, legal liability exposure",
    "legal_system": "Expert testimony standards potentially compromised",
    "opposing_counsel": "Potential grounds for challenging expert qualification",
    "state_m_board": "Regulatory violation to investigate and address"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Regulatory_Compliance_Violation",
    "Professional_Misrepresentation_Risk"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/60#Action_Use_Alternative_Credential_Title",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Official document exists showing non-compliance with State M requirements; potential evidence of professional misconduct created",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Correct_Public_Record",
    "Notify_Regulatory_Board",
    "Address_Misrepresentation"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A\u0027s expert report becomes official document with non-compliant credential designation, creating potential regulatory violation record.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "medium",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Report completion and filing",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "medium",
  "rdfs:label": "Expert Report Publication"
}

Description: State M engineering board's regulatory authority becomes active over Engineer A's practice due to provision of engineering services within state boundaries.

Temporal Marker: Upon service commencement in State M

Activates Constraints:
  • State_M_Licensing_Compliance
  • Regulatory_Oversight_Active
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Potential anxiety for Engineer A if aware of implications; regulatory obligation for State M board; systematic enforcement pressure

Stakeholder Consequences:
  • engineer_a: Subject to disciplinary action, fines, cease and desist orders
  • state_m_board: Obligation to investigate and enforce licensing requirements
  • engineering_profession: Professional standards enforcement at stake
  • public: Protection through licensing system activated
  • legal_system: Qualified expert testimony standards at risk

Learning Moment: Demonstrates automatic nature of regulatory jurisdiction; shows that professional obligations follow practice location, not practitioner residence

Ethical Implications: Reveals how regulatory systems protect public welfare through licensing; shows tension between professional mobility and local oversight; demonstrates automatic nature of legal compliance

Discussion Prompts:
  • How do jurisdictional boundaries affect professional practice obligations?
  • What is the purpose of requiring licensing for expert testimony?
  • Should regulatory enforcement be automatic or discretionary?
Tension: medium Pacing: escalation
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/60#",
    "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/60#Event_Regulatory_Jurisdiction_Activation",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "How do jurisdictional boundaries affect professional practice obligations?",
    "What is the purpose of requiring licensing for expert testimony?",
    "Should regulatory enforcement be automatic or discretionary?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "medium",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Potential anxiety for Engineer A if aware of implications; regulatory obligation for State M board; systematic enforcement pressure",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals how regulatory systems protect public welfare through licensing; shows tension between professional mobility and local oversight; demonstrates automatic nature of legal compliance",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Demonstrates automatic nature of regulatory jurisdiction; shows that professional obligations follow practice location, not practitioner residence",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "escalation",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "engineer_a": "Subject to disciplinary action, fines, cease and desist orders",
    "engineering_profession": "Professional standards enforcement at stake",
    "legal_system": "Qualified expert testimony standards at risk",
    "public": "Protection through licensing system activated",
    "state_m_board": "Obligation to investigate and enforce licensing requirements"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "State_M_Licensing_Compliance",
    "Regulatory_Oversight_Active"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/60#Action_Accept_Expert_Services_Contract",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Engineer A now subject to State M engineering board jurisdiction and disciplinary authority; unlicensed practice violation active",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Obtain_Required_License",
    "Comply_With_State_Regulations",
    "Subject_To_Board_Discipline"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "State M engineering board\u0027s regulatory authority becomes active over Engineer A\u0027s practice due to provision of engineering services within state boundaries.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "medium",
  "proeth:eventType": "automatic_trigger",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Upon service commencement in State M",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "medium",
  "rdfs:label": "Regulatory Jurisdiction Activation"
}
Causal Chains (3)
NESS test analysis: Necessary Element of Sufficient Set

Causal Language: Engineer A's agreement to provide expert services in State M activated the state engineering board's regulatory authority over their practice

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Agreement to practice engineering in State M
  • State M's regulatory jurisdiction over engineering practice
  • Engineer A's provision of engineering services across state lines
Sufficient Factors:
  • Contractual agreement to provide expert engineering services in State M
Counterfactual Test: Without accepting the contract, Engineer A would not have been subject to State M's regulatory jurisdiction
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Accept Expert Services Contract
    Engineer A agrees to provide expert engineering testimony in State M
  2. Expert Services Contract Formation
    Legal agreement established creating obligation to practice engineering in State M
  3. Regulatory Jurisdiction Activation
    State M engineering board's authority becomes active over Engineer A's practice
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/60#",
    "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/60#CausalChain_b4b20c66",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A\u0027s agreement to provide expert services in State M activated the state engineering board\u0027s regulatory authority over their practice",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A agrees to provide expert engineering testimony in State M",
      "proeth:element": "Accept Expert Services Contract",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Legal agreement established creating obligation to practice engineering in State M",
      "proeth:element": "Expert Services Contract Formation",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "State M engineering board\u0027s authority becomes active over Engineer A\u0027s practice",
      "proeth:element": "Regulatory Jurisdiction Activation",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Accept Expert Services Contract",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without accepting the contract, Engineer A would not have been subject to State M\u0027s regulatory jurisdiction",
  "proeth:effect": "Regulatory Jurisdiction Activation",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Agreement to practice engineering in State M",
    "State M\u0027s regulatory jurisdiction over engineering practice",
    "Engineer A\u0027s provision of engineering services across state lines"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Contractual agreement to provide expert engineering services in State M"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer A's deliberate choice to exclude P.E. designation resulted in the expert report being published with non-compliant credential identification

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Conscious decision to omit P.E. designation
  • Legal requirement for P.E. designation in State M
  • Publication of expert report without proper credentials
Sufficient Factors:
  • Deliberate exclusion of required P.E. designation from official expert document
Counterfactual Test: Including the P.E. designation would have resulted in compliant credential identification
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Exclude P.E. Designation Decision
    Engineer A deliberately chooses not to include P.E. designation in signature
  2. Use Alternative Credential Title
    Engineer A signs using 'Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering' instead
  3. Expert Report Publication
    Expert report becomes official document with non-compliant credential designation
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/60#",
    "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/60#CausalChain_f3a1f5fa",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A\u0027s deliberate choice to exclude P.E. designation resulted in the expert report being published with non-compliant credential identification",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A deliberately chooses not to include P.E. designation in signature",
      "proeth:element": "Exclude P.E. Designation Decision",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A signs using \u0027Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering\u0027 instead",
      "proeth:element": "Use Alternative Credential Title",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Expert report becomes official document with non-compliant credential designation",
      "proeth:element": "Expert Report Publication",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Exclude P.E. Designation Decision",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Including the P.E. designation would have resulted in compliant credential identification",
  "proeth:effect": "Expert Report Publication",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Conscious decision to omit P.E. designation",
    "Legal requirement for P.E. designation in State M",
    "Publication of expert report without proper credentials"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Deliberate exclusion of required P.E. designation from official expert document"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: The legal agreement between Attorney X and Engineer A created the contractual obligation that led to the production and publication of the expert report

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Contractual obligation to provide expert opinion
  • Engineer A's agreement to prepare written report
  • Legal proceeding requiring expert documentation
Sufficient Factors:
  • Valid contract requiring expert report preparation and submission
Counterfactual Test: Without the contract formation, no expert report would have been required or produced
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A and Attorney X
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Accept Expert Services Contract
    Engineer A agrees to provide expert services including written report
  2. Expert Services Contract Formation
    Legal agreement established creating obligation for expert documentation
  3. Exclude P.E. Designation Decision
    Engineer A decides on credential presentation approach
  4. Use Alternative Credential Title
    Engineer A implements non-compliant signature approach
  5. Expert Report Publication
    Report submitted with improper credential designation
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/60#",
    "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/60#CausalChain_bfc7a13e",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "The legal agreement between Attorney X and Engineer A created the contractual obligation that led to the production and publication of the expert report",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A agrees to provide expert services including written report",
      "proeth:element": "Accept Expert Services Contract",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Legal agreement established creating obligation for expert documentation",
      "proeth:element": "Expert Services Contract Formation",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A decides on credential presentation approach",
      "proeth:element": "Exclude P.E. Designation Decision",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A implements non-compliant signature approach",
      "proeth:element": "Use Alternative Credential Title",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Report submitted with improper credential designation",
      "proeth:element": "Expert Report Publication",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Expert Services Contract Formation",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the contract formation, no expert report would have been required or produced",
  "proeth:effect": "Expert Report Publication",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Contractual obligation to provide expert opinion",
    "Engineer A\u0027s agreement to prepare written report",
    "Legal proceeding requiring expert documentation"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A and Attorney X",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Valid contract requiring expert report preparation and submission"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}
Allen Temporal Relations (3)
Interval algebra relationships with OWL-Time standard properties
From Entity Allen Relation To Entity OWL-Time Property Evidence
Attorney X contacts Engineer A before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A agrees to evaluate case time:before
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before 		Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimon...
Engineer A agrees to evaluate case before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A signs expert report time:before
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before 		Engineer A agrees to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony... Engineer...
BER Case 95-10 before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		BER Case 04-11 time:before
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before 		For example, in BER Case 95-10... Similarly, in BER Case 04-11
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