This page shows the pre-commit working store (the raw extraction under review). This case was committed to OntServe on 2026-07-25 14:27; the committed record differs by design (deduplication, typing, and agent binding are applied at commit). View the committed record
Overview
Provenance Draft

PASS 3: Temporal Dynamics

Case 84: Duty To Report Safety Violations

27 entities 6 actions 3 events 7 causal chains 10 temporal relations
Timeline Overview
Action Event 9 sequenced markers
Confidential Engagement Acceptance At the outset of the engagement, when retained by the client
Confidential Information Transmission During the course of providing services
Client Safety Warning During the course of providing services, after the client confided the deficiencies
Limited Report Disclosure At report preparation, after completing the structural investigation
Nondisclosure to Authorities At completion of the engagement, after the report was prepared
Continued Client Service Throughout the engagement, after the client stated the building would be sold as is
Structural Soundness Finding During the structural investigation, after testing
Safety Risk Recognition During the course of providing services, upon hearing the client's disclosure
OWL-Time Temporal Structure 10 relations time: = w3.org/2006/time
construction of the apartment building time:intervalBefore Engineer A's retention and investigation
Engineer A's retention time:intervalBefore planned sale of the building
confidentiality agreement time:intervalBefore Engineer A's structural tests and report
structural tests time:intervalDuring Engineer A's engagement with the client
client's confiding of code violations time:intervalDuring Engineer A's provision of professional services
client's disclosure of deficiencies time:intervalBefore Engineer A informing the client of injury risk
conversation with client about deficiencies time:intervalBefore Engineer A's final report
final report submission time:intervalBefore planned 'as is' sale of the building
Engineer A's decision not to report violations to third parties time:intervalDuring period covered by the confidentiality agreement
prior Board precedent cases (61-8, 82-2, 84-5, 85-4, 87-2) time:intervalBefore the present case analysis
Extracted Actions (6)
Volitional professional decisions with intentions and ethical context

Description: Engineer A accepted the retention to investigate the structural integrity of the 60-year old occupied apartment building under an agreement requiring his structural report to remain confidential.

Temporal Marker: At the outset of the engagement, when retained by the client instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Confidentiality Agreement in Effect

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Provide structural investigation services to the client for the planned sale of the building

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Binding himself contractually to keep the report confidential regardless of its findings
Obligation Engagement:
Fulfills (1)
  • Faithfulness to the Client
Guided By Principles:
  • Faithfulness to the Client
Required Capabilities:
Structural engineering expertise Professional contracting judgment
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • fulfillsObligation: Faithfulness to the Client
  • guidedByPrinciple: Faithfulness to the Client
  • requiresCapability: Structural engineering expertise; Professional contracting judgment
  • initiates: Confidentiality Agreement in Effect
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A accepted the retention to investigate the structural integrity of the 60-year old occupied apartment building under an agreement requiring his structural report to remain confidential.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: At the outset of the engagement, when retained by the client
  • eventRoleContext content: Structural Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Provide structural investigation services to the client for the planned sale of the building
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Binding himself contractually to keep the report confidential regardless of its findings
  • textReferences content: Engineer A is retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60-year old occupied apartment building which his client is planning to sell.; Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 1
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#",
    "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/ontology/case/84#Action_Confidential_Engagement_Acceptance",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T21:44:29.181501+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A accepted the retention to investigate the structural integrity of the 60-year old occupied apartment building under an agreement requiring his structural report to remain confidential.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Structural Engineer",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Binding himself contractually to keep the report confidential regardless of its findings"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Faithfulness to the Client"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Faithfulness to the Client"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Confidentiality Agreement in Effect"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Provide structural investigation services to the client for the planned sale of the building",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Structural engineering expertise",
    "Professional contracting judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "At the outset of the engagement, when retained by the client",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 1,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A is retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60-year old occupied apartment building which his client is planning to sell.",
    "Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to remain confidential."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Confidential Engagement Acceptance"
}

Description: Engineer A performed several structural tests on the building and determined that the building is structurally sound.

Temporal Marker: During the course of providing services interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Structural Soundness Determined

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Assess and report on the structural integrity of the building for the client

Obligation Engagement:
Fulfills (1)
  • Faithfulness to the Client
Guided By Principles:
  • Faithfulness to the Client
Required Capabilities:
Structural testing Structural engineering judgment
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • fulfillsObligation: Faithfulness to the Client
  • guidedByPrinciple: Faithfulness to the Client
  • requiresCapability: Structural testing; Structural engineering judgment
  • initiates: Structural Soundness Determined
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A performed several structural tests on the building and determined that the building is structurally sound.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: During the course of providing services
  • eventRoleContext content: Structural Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Assess and report on the structural integrity of the building for the client
  • textReferences content: Engineer A performs several structural tests on the building and determines that the building is structurally sound.
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 2
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#",
    "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/ontology/case/84#Action_Structural_Investigation",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T21:44:29.181658+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A performed several structural tests on the building and determined that the building is structurally sound.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Structural Engineer",
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Faithfulness to the Client"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Faithfulness to the Client"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Structural Soundness Determined"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Assess and report on the structural integrity of the building for the client",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Structural testing",
    "Structural engineering judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During the course of providing services",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 2,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A performs several structural tests on the building and determines that the building is structurally sound."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Structural Investigation"
}

Description: Upon learning from the client of electrical and mechanical code violations, Engineer A informed the client that those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building.

Temporal Marker: During the course of providing services, after the client confided the deficiencies instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Client Informed of Injury Risk
  • Public Safety Risk Known to Engineer

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Alert the client to the injury risk the deficiencies pose to building occupants

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • The client, having stated the building would be sold as is, might take no remedial action
Guided By Principles:
  • Paramount Public Health and Safety
Required Capabilities:
Recognition of hazards to occupants Professional communication with client
Within Competence: No
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Paramount Public Health and Safety
  • requiresCapability: Recognition of hazards to occupants; Professional communication with client
  • initiates: Client Informed of Injury Risk; Public Safety Risk Known to Engineer
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Upon learning from the client of electrical and mechanical code violations, Engineer A informed the client that those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: During the course of providing services, after the client confided the deficiencies
  • eventRoleContext content: Structural Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Alert the client to the injury risk the deficiencies pose to building occupants
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: The client, having stated the building would be sold as is, might take no remedial action
  • textReferences content: While Engineer A is not an electrical nor mechanical engineer, he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 6
  • withinCompetence assessment: False
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#",
    "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/ontology/case/84#Action_Client_Safety_Warning",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T21:44:29.181702+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Upon learning from the client of electrical and mechanical code violations, Engineer A informed the client that those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Structural Engineer",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "The client, having stated the building would be sold as is, might take no remedial action"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Paramount Public Health and Safety"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Client Informed of Injury Risk",
    "Public Safety Risk Known to Engineer"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Alert the client to the injury risk the deficiencies pose to building occupants",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Recognition of hazards to occupants",
    "Professional communication with client"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During the course of providing services, after the client confided the deficiencies",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 6,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "While Engineer A is not an electrical nor mechanical engineer, he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client."
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": false,
  "rdfs:label": "Client Safety Warning"
}

Description: Engineer A proceeded with the work on behalf of the client despite knowing the client would sell the building as is and take no remedial action, rather than insisting on further steps or notifying the appropriate authority.

Temporal Marker: Throughout the engagement, after the client stated the building would be sold as is interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Engineer Acquiescence to Client Position

Mental State: acquiescent

Intended Outcome: Complete the retained services in accordance with the client's stated plans

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • The known deficiencies would go unremedied prior to the sale of the occupied building
Obligation Engagement:
At stake (1)
  • Paramount Public Health and Safety
Guided By Principles:
  • Faithfulness to the Client
Required Capabilities:
Professional judgment on whether to continue an engagement
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Faithfulness to the Client
  • requiresCapability: Professional judgment on whether to continue an engagement
  • initiates: Engineer Acquiescence to Client Position
  • raisesObligation: Paramount Public Health and Safety
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A proceeded with the work on behalf of the client despite knowing the client would sell the building as is and take no remedial action, rather than insisting on further steps or notifying the appropriate authority.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: Throughout the engagement, after the client stated the building would be sold as is
  • eventRoleContext content: Structural Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: acquiescent
  • intendedOutcome content: Complete the retained services in accordance with the client's stated plans
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: The known deficiencies would go unremedied prior to the sale of the occupied building
  • textReferences content: the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold "as is" and he is not planning to take any remedial action to repair or renovate any system within the building prior to its sale.; Engineer A, like the engineer in Case 84-5 , "went along" and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client.
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 7
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#",
    "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/ontology/case/84#Action_Continued_Client_Service",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T21:44:29.181783+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A proceeded with the work on behalf of the client despite knowing the client would sell the building as is and take no remedial action, rather than insisting on further steps or notifying the appropriate authority.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Structural Engineer",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "The known deficiencies would go unremedied prior to the sale of the occupied building"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Faithfulness to the Client"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "acquiescent",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Engineer Acquiescence to Client Position"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Complete the retained services in accordance with the client\u0027s stated plans",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [
    "Paramount Public Health and Safety"
  ],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Professional judgment on whether to continue an engagement"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Throughout the engagement, after the client stated the building would be sold as is",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 7,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "the client makes clear to Engineer A that the building is being sold \"as is\" and he is not planning to take any remedial action to repair or renovate any system within the building prior to its sale.",
    "Engineer A, like the engineer in Case 84-5 , \"went along\" and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Continued Client Service"
}

Description: In his written report, Engineer A made only a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the electrical and mechanical deficiencies.

Temporal Marker: At report preparation, after completing the structural investigation instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Deficiencies Documented in Confidential Report

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Document the deficiencies conversation within the confidential report while honoring the terms of the agreement

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • The safety violations would remain known only to the client and Engineer A
Obligation Engagement:
Fulfills (1)
  • Confidentiality of Client Information
Guided By Principles:
  • Faithfulness to the Client
Required Capabilities:
Report writing Professional judgment on disclosure
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • fulfillsObligation: Confidentiality of Client Information
  • guidedByPrinciple: Faithfulness to the Client
  • requiresCapability: Report writing; Professional judgment on disclosure
  • initiates: Deficiencies Documented in Confidential Report
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: In his written report, Engineer A made only a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the electrical and mechanical deficiencies.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: At report preparation, after completing the structural investigation
  • eventRoleContext content: Structural Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Document the deficiencies conversation within the confidential report while honoring the terms of the agreement
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: The safety violations would remain known only to the client and Engineer A
  • textReferences content: In his report, Engineer A makes a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the deficiencies
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 8
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#",
    "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/ontology/case/84#Action_Limited_Report_Disclosure",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T21:44:29.181732+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "In his written report, Engineer A made only a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the electrical and mechanical deficiencies.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Structural Engineer",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "The safety violations would remain known only to the client and Engineer A"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Confidentiality of Client Information"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Faithfulness to the Client"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Deficiencies Documented in Confidential Report"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Document the deficiencies conversation within the confidential report while honoring the terms of the agreement",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Report writing",
    "Professional judgment on disclosure"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "At report preparation, after completing the structural investigation",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 8,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "In his report, Engineer A makes a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the deficiencies"
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Limited Report Disclosure"
}

Description: Engineer A, deferring to the confidentiality terms of his agreement, did not report the known safety violations to any third party or appropriate authority, an omission the Board treats as his conduct and finds cannot be condoned.

Temporal Marker: At completion of the engagement, after the report was prepared instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Undisclosed Public Safety Hazard

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Maintain the confidentiality promised to the client under the terms of the agreement

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Occupants of the building would remain exposed to deficiencies that could cause injury
Obligation Engagement:
Fulfills (1)
  • Confidentiality of Client Information
Violates (2)
  • Paramount Public Health and Safety
  • Duty to Notify Appropriate Authority When Public Safety Is Endangered
Guided By Principles:
  • Faithfulness to the Client
Required Capabilities:
Judgment on when disclosure is required by law or the Code
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • fulfillsObligation: Confidentiality of Client Information
  • violatesObligation: Paramount Public Health and Safety; Duty to Notify Appropriate Authority When Public Safety Is Endangered
  • guidedByPrinciple: Faithfulness to the Client
  • requiresCapability: Judgment on when disclosure is required by law or the Code
  • initiates: Undisclosed Public Safety Hazard
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A, deferring to the confidentiality terms of his agreement, did not report the known safety violations to any third party or appropriate authority, an omission the Board treats as his conduct and finds cannot be condoned.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: At completion of the engagement, after the report was prepared
  • eventRoleContext content: Structural Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Maintain the confidentiality promised to the client under the terms of the agreement
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Occupants of the building would remain exposed to deficiencies that could cause injury
  • textReferences content: in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party.; Instead, Engineer A, like the engineer in Case 84-5 , "went along" and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client. His conduct cannot be condoned under the Code.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 9
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#",
    "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/ontology/case/84#Action_Nondisclosure_to_Authorities",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T21:44:29.181758+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A, deferring to the confidentiality terms of his agreement, did not report the known safety violations to any third party or appropriate authority, an omission the Board treats as his conduct and finds cannot be condoned.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Structural Engineer",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Occupants of the building would remain exposed to deficiencies that could cause injury"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Confidentiality of Client Information"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Faithfulness to the Client"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Undisclosed Public Safety Hazard"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Maintain the confidentiality promised to the client under the terms of the agreement",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Judgment on when disclosure is required by law or the Code"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "At completion of the engagement, after the report was prepared",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 9,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party.",
    "Instead, Engineer A, like the engineer in Case 84-5 , \"went along\" and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client. His conduct cannot be condoned under the Code."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Paramount Public Health and Safety",
    "Duty to Notify Appropriate Authority When Public Safety Is Endangered"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Nondisclosure to Authorities"
}
Extracted Events (3)
Occurrences that trigger ethical considerations and state changes

Description: The structural tests performed by Engineer A yield the determination that the 60-year-old apartment building is structurally sound.

Temporal Marker: During the structural investigation, after testing instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Building Structurally Sound
Terminates (1)
  • Structural Integrity Unknown

Caused By Action: Action_Structural_Investigation

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#Action_Structural_Investigation
  • initiates: Building Structurally Sound
  • terminates: Structural Integrity Unknown
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The structural tests performed by Engineer A yield the determination that the 60-year-old apartment building is structurally sound.
  • temporalMarker content: During the structural investigation, after testing
  • textReferences content: Engineer A performs several structural tests on the building and determines that the building is structurally sound.
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 3
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#",
    "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/ontology/case/84#Event_Structural_Soundness_Finding",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T21:44:29.181882+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#Action_Structural_Investigation",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.85",
  "proeth:description": "The structural tests performed by Engineer A yield the determination that the 60-year-old apartment building is structurally sound.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Building Structurally Sound"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During the structural investigation, after testing",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 3,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Structural Integrity Unknown"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A performs several structural tests on the building and determines that the building is structurally sound."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Structural Soundness Finding"
}

Description: During the course of the engagement, the client confides in Engineer A that the building contains electrical and mechanical deficiencies that violate applicable codes and standards. This transmission of confidential information brings Section III.4 into play and places Engineer A in possession of safety-relevant knowledge outside his own discipline.

Temporal Marker: During the course of providing services instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (3)
  • Confidential Information Held
  • Known Code Violations
  • Conflict Between Confidentiality and Public Safety Obligations
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Confidential Information Held; Known Code Violations; Conflict Between Confidentiality and Public Safety Obligations
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: During the course of the engagement, the client confides in Engineer A that the building contains electrical and mechanical deficiencies that violate applicable codes and standards. This transmission of confidential information brings Section III.4 into play and places Engineer A in possession of safety-relevant knowledge outside his own discipline.
  • temporalMarker content: During the course of providing services
  • textReferences content: during the course of providing services, the client confides in Engineer A and informs him that the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards; under the facts of the present case, there was a transmission of confidential information by the client to Engineer A
  • eventType content: exogenous
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 4
  • confidence assessment: 0.8
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#",
    "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/ontology/case/84#Event_Confidential_Information_Transmission",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T21:44:29.182437+00:00",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.8",
  "proeth:description": "During the course of the engagement, the client confides in Engineer A that the building contains electrical and mechanical deficiencies that violate applicable codes and standards. This transmission of confidential information brings Section III.4 into play and places Engineer A in possession of safety-relevant knowledge outside his own discipline.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Confidential Information Held",
    "Known Code Violations",
    "Conflict Between Confidentiality and Public Safety Obligations"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During the course of providing services",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 4,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "during the course of providing services, the client confides in Engineer A and informs him that the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards",
    "under the facts of the present case, there was a transmission of confidential information by the client to Engineer A"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Confidential Information Transmission"
}

Description: Although Engineer A is not an electrical or mechanical engineer, he realizes that the disclosed deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building. This non-volitional realization creates his awareness of a public safety hazard.

Temporal Marker: During the course of providing services, upon hearing the client's disclosure instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Engineer Awareness of Occupant Injury Risk
  • Public Safety Endangerment
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Engineer Awareness of Occupant Injury Risk; Public Safety Endangerment
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Although Engineer A is not an electrical or mechanical engineer, he realizes that the disclosed deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building. This non-volitional realization creates his awareness of a public safety hazard.
  • temporalMarker content: During the course of providing services, upon hearing the client's disclosure
  • textReferences content: While Engineer A is not an electrical nor mechanical engineer, he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client.
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 5
  • confidence assessment: 0.82
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#",
    "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/ontology/case/84#Event_Safety_Risk_Recognition",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T21:44:29.182485+00:00",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.82",
  "proeth:description": "Although Engineer A is not an electrical or mechanical engineer, he realizes that the disclosed deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building. This non-volitional realization creates his awareness of a public safety hazard.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Engineer Awareness of Occupant Injury Risk",
    "Public Safety Endangerment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During the course of providing services, upon hearing the client\u0027s disclosure",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 5,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "While Engineer A is not an electrical nor mechanical engineer, he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Safety Risk Recognition"
}
Causal Chains (7)
NESS test analysis: Necessary Element of Sufficient Set

Causal Language: Engineer A is retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60-year old occupied apartment building which his client is planning to sell.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Client's decision to sell the building and need for a structural report
  • Engineer A's acceptance of the retention agreement
  • Agreement terms establishing scope of structural investigation
Sufficient Factors:
  • Retention agreement combined with Engineer A's acceptance of the engagement was sufficient to initiate the structural testing
Counterfactual Test: Without accepting the confidential engagement, Engineer A would not have performed the structural tests on the building
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Confidential Engagement Acceptance
    Engineer A accepts retention under confidentiality terms with an 'as is' sale condition
  2. Structural Investigation
    Engineer A performs several structural tests on the 60-year-old occupied building
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Confidential Engagement Acceptance
  • effect: Structural Investigation
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A is retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60-year old occupied apartment building which his client is planning to sell.
  • necessaryFactors content: Client's decision to sell the building and need for a structural report; Engineer A's acceptance of the retention agreement; Agreement terms establishing scope of structural investigation
  • sufficientFactors content: Retention agreement combined with Engineer A's acceptance of the engagement was sufficient to initiate the structural testing
  • counterfactual content: Without accepting the confidential engagement, Engineer A would not have performed the structural tests on the building
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew the report was to remain confidential and that the client intended to sell the building 'as is' without remedial action
  • interveningFactors content: Client's stipulation of confidentiality; Client's 'as is' sale intention
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Confidential Engagement Acceptance', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A accepts retention under confidentiality terms with an 'as is' sale condition"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Structural Investigation', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A performs several structural tests on the 60-year-old occupied building'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#CausalChain_1",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T21:44:29.182724+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew the report was to remain confidential and that the client intended to sell the building \u0027as is\u0027 without remedial action",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A is retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60-year old occupied apartment building which his client is planning to sell.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A accepts retention under confidentiality terms with an \u0027as is\u0027 sale condition",
      "proeth:element": "Confidential Engagement Acceptance",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A performs several structural tests on the 60-year-old occupied building",
      "proeth:element": "Structural Investigation",
      "proeth:step": 2
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Confidential Engagement Acceptance",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without accepting the confidential engagement, Engineer A would not have performed the structural tests on the building",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Structural Investigation",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Client\u0027s stipulation of confidentiality",
    "Client\u0027s \u0027as is\u0027 sale intention"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Client\u0027s decision to sell the building and need for a structural report",
    "Engineer A\u0027s acceptance of the retention agreement",
    "Agreement terms establishing scope of structural investigation"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Retention agreement combined with Engineer A\u0027s acceptance of the engagement was sufficient to initiate the structural testing"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer A performs several structural tests on the building and determines that the building is structurally sound.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Performance of structural tests
  • Engineer A's professional competence in structural engineering
  • Building's actual structural condition
Sufficient Factors:
  • Competent structural testing combined with the building's sound condition was sufficient to yield the soundness determination
Counterfactual Test: Without the structural tests being performed, no professional determination of structural soundness would have been made
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Structural Investigation
    Engineer A performs several structural tests on the building
  2. Structural Soundness Finding
    Tests yield the determination that the building is structurally sound
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Structural Investigation
  • effect: Structural Soundness Finding
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A performs several structural tests on the building and determines that the building is structurally sound.
  • necessaryFactors content: Performance of structural tests; Engineer A's professional competence in structural engineering; Building's actual structural condition
  • sufficientFactors content: Competent structural testing combined with the building's sound condition was sufficient to yield the soundness determination
  • counterfactual content: Without the structural tests being performed, no professional determination of structural soundness would have been made
  • agentKnowledge content: Possessed structural engineering expertise appropriate to the assessment
  • interveningFactors content: Actual physical condition of the 60-year-old building
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Structural Investigation', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A performs several structural tests on the building'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Structural Soundness Finding', 'proeth:description': 'Tests yield the determination that the building is structurally sound'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#CausalChain_2",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T21:44:29.182770+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Possessed structural engineering expertise appropriate to the assessment",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A performs several structural tests on the building and determines that the building is structurally sound.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A performs several structural tests on the building",
      "proeth:element": "Structural Investigation",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Tests yield the determination that the building is structurally sound",
      "proeth:element": "Structural Soundness Finding",
      "proeth:step": 2
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Structural Investigation",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the structural tests being performed, no professional determination of structural soundness would have been made",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Structural Soundness Finding",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Actual physical condition of the 60-year-old building"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Performance of structural tests",
    "Engineer A\u0027s professional competence in structural engineering",
    "Building\u0027s actual structural condition"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Competent structural testing combined with the building\u0027s sound condition was sufficient to yield the soundness determination"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: However, during the course of providing services, the client confides in Engineer A and informs him that the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Existence of a professional engagement creating a trust relationship
  • Client's possession of knowledge about electrical and mechanical deficiencies
  • Client's willingness to confide under confidentiality terms
Sufficient Factors:
  • The agent/trustee relationship established by the engagement plus the client's decision to confide was sufficient for the transmission of confidential information
Counterfactual Test: Without the engagement and its confidential relationship, the client would likely not have confided the code violations to Engineer A
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Client (with Engineer A as recipient)
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: No

Causal Sequence:
  1. Confidential Engagement Acceptance
    Engineer A enters into a confidential professional relationship with the client
  2. Course of Services
    Engineer A acts as agent/trustee, privy to the client's business affairs
  3. Confidential Information Transmission
    Client confides that the building contains electrical and mechanical code violations
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Confidential Engagement Acceptance
  • effect: Confidential Information Transmission
  • responsibleAgent: Client (with Engineer A as recipient)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: However, during the course of providing services, the client confides in Engineer A and informs him that the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards.
  • necessaryFactors content: Existence of a professional engagement creating a trust relationship; Client's possession of knowledge about electrical and mechanical deficiencies; Client's willingness to confide under confidentiality terms
  • sufficientFactors content: The agent/trustee relationship established by the engagement plus the client's decision to confide was sufficient for the transmission of confidential information
  • counterfactual content: Without the engagement and its confidential relationship, the client would likely not have confided the code violations to Engineer A
  • agentKnowledge content: Client knew of the code violations; Engineer A did not know of them prior to the disclosure
  • interveningFactors content: Client's voluntary decision to confide; Confidentiality terms in the agreement
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Confidential Engagement Acceptance', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A enters into a confidential professional relationship with the client'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Course of Services', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A acts as agent/trustee, privy to the client's business affairs"}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Confidential Information Transmission', 'proeth:description': 'Client confides that the building contains electrical and mechanical code violations'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: False
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#CausalChain_3",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T21:44:29.182795+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Client knew of the code violations; Engineer A did not know of them prior to the disclosure",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "However, during the course of providing services, the client confides in Engineer A and informs him that the building contains deficiencies in the electrical and mechanical systems which violate applicable codes and standards.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A enters into a confidential professional relationship with the client",
      "proeth:element": "Confidential Engagement Acceptance",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A acts as agent/trustee, privy to the client\u0027s business affairs",
      "proeth:element": "Course of Services",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Client confides that the building contains electrical and mechanical code violations",
      "proeth:element": "Confidential Information Transmission",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Confidential Engagement Acceptance",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the engagement and its confidential relationship, the client would likely not have confided the code violations to Engineer A",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Confidential Information Transmission",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Client\u0027s voluntary decision to confide",
    "Confidentiality terms in the agreement"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Existence of a professional engagement creating a trust relationship",
    "Client\u0027s possession of knowledge about electrical and mechanical deficiencies",
    "Client\u0027s willingness to confide under confidentiality terms"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Client (with Engineer A as recipient)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The agent/trustee relationship established by the engagement plus the client\u0027s decision to confide was sufficient for the transmission of confidential information"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": false
}

Causal Language: While Engineer A is not an electrical nor mechanical engineer, he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Client's disclosure of the electrical and mechanical deficiencies
  • Engineer A's general professional judgment despite lacking electrical/mechanical specialization
  • Occupancy of the building creating an at-risk population
Sufficient Factors:
  • Receipt of the deficiency information combined with Engineer A's professional judgment was sufficient for recognizing the injury risk to occupants
Counterfactual Test: Without the client's disclosure, Engineer A would not have known of or recognized the safety risks, as they were outside his structural investigation scope
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Confidential Information Transmission
    Client informs Engineer A of code-violating electrical and mechanical deficiencies
  2. Safety Risk Recognition
    Engineer A realizes the deficiencies could cause injury to building occupants
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Confidential Information Transmission
  • effect: Safety Risk Recognition
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: While Engineer A is not an electrical nor mechanical engineer, he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client.
  • necessaryFactors content: Client's disclosure of the electrical and mechanical deficiencies; Engineer A's general professional judgment despite lacking electrical/mechanical specialization; Occupancy of the building creating an at-risk population
  • sufficientFactors content: Receipt of the deficiency information combined with Engineer A's professional judgment was sufficient for recognizing the injury risk to occupants
  • counterfactual content: Without the client's disclosure, Engineer A would not have known of or recognized the safety risks, as they were outside his structural investigation scope
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew of the code violations from the client and understood the building was occupied
  • interveningFactors content: Engineer A's lack of electrical/mechanical specialization
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Confidential Information Transmission', 'proeth:description': 'Client informs Engineer A of code-violating electrical and mechanical deficiencies'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Safety Risk Recognition', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A realizes the deficiencies could cause injury to building occupants'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#CausalChain_4",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T21:44:29.182818+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew of the code violations from the client and understood the building was occupied",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "While Engineer A is not an electrical nor mechanical engineer, he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Client informs Engineer A of code-violating electrical and mechanical deficiencies",
      "proeth:element": "Confidential Information Transmission",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A realizes the deficiencies could cause injury to building occupants",
      "proeth:element": "Safety Risk Recognition",
      "proeth:step": 2
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Confidential Information Transmission",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the client\u0027s disclosure, Engineer A would not have known of or recognized the safety risks, as they were outside his structural investigation scope",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Safety Risk Recognition",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s lack of electrical/mechanical specialization"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Client\u0027s disclosure of the electrical and mechanical deficiencies",
    "Engineer A\u0027s general professional judgment despite lacking electrical/mechanical specialization",
    "Occupancy of the building creating an at-risk population"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Receipt of the deficiency information combined with Engineer A\u0027s professional judgment was sufficient for recognizing the injury risk to occupants"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's recognition of the injury risk
  • Ongoing communication channel with the client
  • Engineer A's sense of professional obligation to raise the concern
Sufficient Factors:
  • Recognition of the danger combined with Engineer A's professional obligation was sufficient to prompt the warning to the client
Counterfactual Test: Without recognizing that the deficiencies could cause injury, Engineer A would have had no basis to warn the client
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Safety Risk Recognition
    Engineer A realizes the deficiencies could cause injury to occupants
  2. Client Safety Warning
    Engineer A informs the client of the injury risk
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Safety Risk Recognition
  • effect: Client Safety Warning
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's recognition of the injury risk; Ongoing communication channel with the client; Engineer A's sense of professional obligation to raise the concern
  • sufficientFactors content: Recognition of the danger combined with Engineer A's professional obligation was sufficient to prompt the warning to the client
  • counterfactual content: Without recognizing that the deficiencies could cause injury, Engineer A would have had no basis to warn the client
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew the deficiencies could injure occupants and that the client intended no remedial action
  • interveningFactors content: Client's stated refusal to repair or renovate prior to sale
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Safety Risk Recognition', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A realizes the deficiencies could cause injury to occupants'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Client Safety Warning', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A informs the client of the injury risk'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#CausalChain_5",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T21:44:29.182839+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew the deficiencies could injure occupants and that the client intended no remedial action",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so informs the client",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A realizes the deficiencies could cause injury to occupants",
      "proeth:element": "Safety Risk Recognition",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A informs the client of the injury risk",
      "proeth:element": "Client Safety Warning",
      "proeth:step": 2
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Safety Risk Recognition",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without recognizing that the deficiencies could cause injury, Engineer A would have had no basis to warn the client",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Client Safety Warning",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Client\u0027s stated refusal to repair or renovate prior to sale"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s recognition of the injury risk",
    "Ongoing communication channel with the client",
    "Engineer A\u0027s sense of professional obligation to raise the concern"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Recognition of the danger combined with Engineer A\u0027s professional obligation was sufficient to prompt the warning to the client"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: however, in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Confidentiality terms in the agreement
  • Engineer A's decision to prioritize the confidentiality obligation over public safety disclosure
  • Knowledge of safety violations that could otherwise have been reported
Sufficient Factors:
  • The confidentiality agreement combined with Engineer A's deference to it was sufficient to produce the nondisclosure to authorities
Counterfactual Test: Even with the confidentiality agreement, Engineer A could have disclosed under the Section II.1.c. exception; the nondisclosure required his volitional choice to defer to the agreement, so the outcome was not inevitable
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Confidential Engagement Acceptance
    Engineer A agrees the report will remain confidential
  2. Safety Risk Recognition
    Engineer A learns of and recognizes safety-endangering code violations
  3. Limited Report Disclosure
    Engineer A makes only a brief mention of the deficiencies in his report
  4. Nondisclosure to Authorities
    Deferring to the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Confidential Engagement Acceptance
  • effect: Nondisclosure to Authorities
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: however, in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party
  • necessaryFactors content: Confidentiality terms in the agreement; Engineer A's decision to prioritize the confidentiality obligation over public safety disclosure; Knowledge of safety violations that could otherwise have been reported
  • sufficientFactors content: The confidentiality agreement combined with Engineer A's deference to it was sufficient to produce the nondisclosure to authorities
  • counterfactual content: Even with the confidentiality agreement, Engineer A could have disclosed under the Section II.1.c. exception; the nondisclosure required his volitional choice to defer to the agreement, so the outcome was not inevitable
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew the deficiencies could cause injury to occupants and knew the client would take no remedial action, yet deferred to confidentiality terms
  • interveningFactors content: Contractual confidentiality obligation; Absence of explicit exceptions in Section III.4
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Confidential Engagement Acceptance', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A agrees the report will remain confidential'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Safety Risk Recognition', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A learns of and recognizes safety-endangering code violations'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Limited Report Disclosure', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A makes only a brief mention of the deficiencies in his report'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Nondisclosure to Authorities', 'proeth:description': 'Deferring to the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#CausalChain_6",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T21:44:29.182859+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew the deficiencies could cause injury to occupants and knew the client would take no remedial action, yet deferred to confidentiality terms",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "however, in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A agrees the report will remain confidential",
      "proeth:element": "Confidential Engagement Acceptance",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A learns of and recognizes safety-endangering code violations",
      "proeth:element": "Safety Risk Recognition",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A makes only a brief mention of the deficiencies in his report",
      "proeth:element": "Limited Report Disclosure",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Deferring to the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third party",
      "proeth:element": "Nondisclosure to Authorities",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Confidential Engagement Acceptance",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Even with the confidentiality agreement, Engineer A could have disclosed under the Section II.1.c. exception; the nondisclosure required his volitional choice to defer to the agreement, so the outcome was not inevitable",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Nondisclosure to Authorities",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Contractual confidentiality obligation",
    "Absence of explicit exceptions in Section III.4"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Confidentiality terms in the agreement",
    "Engineer A\u0027s decision to prioritize the confidentiality obligation over public safety disclosure",
    "Knowledge of safety violations that could otherwise have been reported"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The confidentiality agreement combined with Engineer A\u0027s deference to it was sufficient to produce the nondisclosure to authorities"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Instead, Engineer A, like the engineer in Case 84-5 , "went along" and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's decision not to escalate the safety issue to authorities
  • Engineer A's willingness to continue serving the client despite unresolved danger
  • Client's refusal to take remedial action
Sufficient Factors:
  • Choosing nondisclosure while the client refused remediation, combined with continuing the engagement, was sufficient to constitute 'going along' with the endangering course of conduct
Counterfactual Test: Had Engineer A insisted on remediation or notified authorities, continuing the work would not have constituted 'going along'; per Case 84-5 reasoning he should have insisted or refused to continue
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Client Safety Warning
    Engineer A informs the client of the injury risk; client takes no remedial action
  2. Nondisclosure to Authorities
    Engineer A declines to report the safety violations to any third party
  3. Continued Client Service
    Engineer A proceeds with the work on behalf of the client without dissent
  4. Continuing Occupant Endangerment
    Occupants remain exposed to injury risk from unreported, unremediated code violations
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Nondisclosure to Authorities
  • effect: Continued Client Service
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Instead, Engineer A, like the engineer in Case 84-5 , "went along" and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's decision not to escalate the safety issue to authorities; Engineer A's willingness to continue serving the client despite unresolved danger; Client's refusal to take remedial action
  • sufficientFactors content: Choosing nondisclosure while the client refused remediation, combined with continuing the engagement, was sufficient to constitute 'going along' with the endangering course of conduct
  • counterfactual content: Had Engineer A insisted on remediation or notified authorities, continuing the work would not have constituted 'going along'; per Case 84-5 reasoning he should have insisted or refused to continue
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew occupants faced injury risk, knew the client would sell 'as is', and knew authorities had not been notified
  • interveningFactors content: Client's insistence on confidentiality and 'as is' sale
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Client Safety Warning', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A informs the client of the injury risk; client takes no remedial action'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Nondisclosure to Authorities', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A declines to report the safety violations to any third party'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Continued Client Service', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A proceeds with the work on behalf of the client without dissent'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Continuing Occupant Endangerment', 'proeth:description': 'Occupants remain exposed to injury risk from unreported, unremediated code violations'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/84#CausalChain_7",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T21:44:29.182877+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew occupants faced injury risk, knew the client would sell \u0027as is\u0027, and knew authorities had not been notified",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Instead, Engineer A, like the engineer in Case 84-5 , \"went along\" and proceeded with the work on behalf of the client.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A informs the client of the injury risk; client takes no remedial action",
      "proeth:element": "Client Safety Warning",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A declines to report the safety violations to any third party",
      "proeth:element": "Nondisclosure to Authorities",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A proceeds with the work on behalf of the client without dissent",
      "proeth:element": "Continued Client Service",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Occupants remain exposed to injury risk from unreported, unremediated code violations",
      "proeth:element": "Continuing Occupant Endangerment",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Nondisclosure to Authorities",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer A insisted on remediation or notified authorities, continuing the work would not have constituted \u0027going along\u0027; per Case 84-5 reasoning he should have insisted or refused to continue",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Continued Client Service",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Client\u0027s insistence on confidentiality and \u0027as is\u0027 sale"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s decision not to escalate the safety issue to authorities",
    "Engineer A\u0027s willingness to continue serving the client despite unresolved danger",
    "Client\u0027s refusal to take remedial action"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Choosing nondisclosure while the client refused remediation, combined with continuing the engagement, was sufficient to constitute \u0027going along\u0027 with the endangering course of conduct"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}
Allen Temporal Relations (10)
Interval algebra relationships with OWL-Time standard properties
From Entity Allen Relation To Entity OWL-Time Property Evidence
construction of the apartment building before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A's retention and investigation time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer A is retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60-year old occupied apartment b... [more]
Engineer A's retention before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		planned sale of the building time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		retained to investigate the structural integrity of a 60-year old occupied apartment building which ... [more]
confidentiality agreement before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A's structural tests and report time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Under the terms of the agreement with the client, the structural report written by Engineer A is to ... [more]
structural tests during
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2 		Engineer A's engagement with the client time:intervalDuring
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring 		Engineer A performs several structural tests on the building and determines that the building is str... [more]
client's confiding of code violations during
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2 		Engineer A's provision of professional services time:intervalDuring
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring 		during the course of providing services, the client confides in Engineer A and informs him that the ... [more]
client's disclosure of deficiencies before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A informing the client of injury risk time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		he does realize those deficiencies could cause injury to the occupants of the building and so inform... [more]
conversation with client about deficiencies before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A's final report time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		In his report, Engineer A makes a brief mention of his conversation with the client concerning the d... [more]
final report submission before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		planned 'as is' sale of the building time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		the building is being sold 'as is' and he is not planning to take any remedial action to repair or r... [more]
Engineer A's decision not to report violations to third parties during
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2 		period covered by the confidentiality agreement time:intervalDuring
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring 		in view of the terms of the agreement, Engineer A does not report the safety violations to any third... [more]
prior Board precedent cases (61-8, 82-2, 84-5, 85-4, 87-2) before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		the present case analysis time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		On numerous occasions, this Board has interpreted the language contained in Sections II.4. and III.4... [more]
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.

Back to Extraction Continue to Step 4

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3