{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/9#",
    "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/9#Action_Design_Approach_Selection",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer T selected a straightforward structural modification approach requiring connections in a tightly constrained space beneath an upper floor and decided not to explore alternative design concepts.",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Senior Structural Engineer, XYZ Consulting Engineers",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Constrained access for construction workers making the connections"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Competent Professional Design Obligation"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Competence Principle"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer T",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Constrained Access Design State",
    "Unexplored Safer Alternative State"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Establish a straightforward, workable project scope for the structural modifications",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Structural engineering design judgment",
    "Project scoping"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Project scoping phase, at the start of the structural modifications project",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 1,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "In establishing the project scope for the structural modifications, Engineer T selected a straightforward approach that required making structural connections immediately beneath floor level on an upper floor, in a tightly constrained space.",
    "Engineer T proceeded with the project per these parameters and did not explore alternative design approaches."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Design Approach Selection"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/9#",
    "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/9#Action_Construction_Documents_Issuance",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer T completed the design within the identified constraints, clearly noted the constrained access on the drawings, and issued construction documents for the modifications.",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Senior Structural Engineer, XYZ Consulting Engineers",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Workers would have to make the connections in a contorted fashion"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Hold Paramount Public Safety Obligation"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Public Safety Paramount Principle",
    "Competence Principle"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer T",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Construction Documents Issued State",
    "Constrained Access Disclosed State"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Deliver complete, professionally prepared construction documents that alert the contractor to the limited access condition",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Structural design documentation",
    "Preparation of construction documents"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "At design completion, before construction began",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 2,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Rather, Engineer T completed the design within the identified constraints and issued construction documents for the modifications.",
    "The new structural connections were located in such a way that access was limited, and the drawings clearly noted the constrained access."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Construction Documents Issuance"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/9#",
    "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/9#Action_Error_Concern_Raising",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth:description": "After the accident and site revisit, Engineer T met with Chief Structural Engineer B, explained the situation, and expressed the belief that a design error had been made and that the NSPE Code of Ethics required the error be acknowledged.",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Senior Structural Engineer, XYZ Consulting Engineers",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Potential professional and firm exposure from acknowledging an error"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Acknowledge Errors Obligation",
    "Personal Responsibility Obligation"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Error Acknowledgement Principle",
    "Public Safety Paramount Principle"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer T",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "conscientious, motivated by felt personal responsibility",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Error Acknowledgement Question Open State"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Determine whether the NSPE Code of Ethics required acknowledgement of a design error",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Ethical judgment",
    "Professional self-assessment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Following the accident and Engineer T\u0027s site revisit",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 5,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer T met with XYZ\u2019s Chief Structural Engineer, Engineer B, explained the situation, and expressed a belief that a design error \u2013 i.e., not exploring alternative, safer design concepts \u2013 had been made and the NSPE Code of Ethics required that the error be acknowledged."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Error Concern Raising"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/9#",
    "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/9#Action_Error_Acknowledgement_Decision",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth:description": "After Engineer B set out reasons why no error acknowledgement was warranted, Engineer T and Engineer B jointly decided that the situation did not merit acknowledgement of an error.",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Chief Structural Engineer, XYZ Consulting Engineers",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "The question of error would remain unaddressed unless raised again, such as in litigation"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Error Acknowledgement Principle",
    "Competence Principle"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer T and Engineer B",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate, thoughtfully considered",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "No Error Acknowledgement Position State"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Resolve whether the firm\u0027s design work constituted an error requiring acknowledgement under the NSPE Code",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Ethical judgment",
    "Knowledge of the professional standard of care",
    "Understanding of contractual allocation of construction safety responsibility"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During the meeting between Engineer T and Engineer B following the accident",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 6,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Error Acknowledgement Question Open State"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Having thus thoughtfully considered the matter, both Engineer T and Engineer B decided that the situation did not merit acknowledgement of \u201can error.\u201d"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Error Acknowledgement Decision"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/9#",
    "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/9#Action_Legal_Counsel_Advising",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth:agentRelation": "and",
  "proeth:agents": [
    "Attorneys representing XYZ Consulting Engineers",
    "XYZ\u0027s insurance company"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "XYZ\u0027s and the insurer\u0027s attorneys advised Engineer T to respond to deposition questions with complete transparency and not to distort or alter any facts, but not to voluntarily characterize the design work as an error, since the legal process would determine whether an error had been made.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Engineer T would not volunteer any acknowledgement of a possible error"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Objectivity and Truthfulness Principle"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Attorneys representing XYZ Consulting Engineers and XYZ\u0027s insurance company",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Deposition Testimony Guidance State"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Prepare Engineer T to testify truthfully while leaving the determination of error to the legal process",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [
    "Not Distort or Alter Facts Obligation"
  ],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Legal judgment",
    "Deposition preparation"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Months later, during deposition preparation after a construction claim and lawsuit were filed",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 8,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Both of XYZ Consulting Engineers\u2019 attorneys agreed that a clear obligation existed not to distort or alter any facts, and that Engineer T should respond to questions with complete transparency during the deposition.",
    "The attorneys indicated that the legal process would determine whether, based on the facts, an error had been made, and that Engineer T should clearly report the facts, but should not voluntarily characterize the design work as an error."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Legal Counsel Advising"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/9#",
    "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/9#Action_Factual_Deposition_Testimony",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth:description": "In the deposition, Engineer T responded factually to all questions regarding the design and the design process.",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Senior Structural Engineer, XYZ Consulting Engineers",
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Objective and Truthful Statements Obligation",
    "Not Distort or Alter Facts Obligation"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Objectivity and Truthfulness Principle"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer T",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate, transparent",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Factual Testimony Provided State"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Provide complete and truthful factual testimony about the project history and design process",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Truthful testimony",
    "Knowledge of the project history and design"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "At the deposition, after deposition preparation",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 9,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "In the deposition, Engineer T responded factually to all questions regarding the design and the design process."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Factual Deposition Testimony"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/9#",
    "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/9#Action_Error_Acknowledgement_Withholding",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer T, following the attorneys\u0027 counsel and the earlier decision with Engineer B, did not offer an acknowledgement of a possible error at the deposition, and was not asked whether an error had been made. The case treats this non-performance as Engineer T\u0027s conduct and evaluates its ethics.",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Senior Structural Engineer, XYZ Consulting Engineers",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "The question of a possible design error would not be raised by Engineer T\u0027s own testimony"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Not Distort or Alter Facts Obligation"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Objectivity and Truthfulness Principle",
    "Error Acknowledgement Principle"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer T",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate restraint, consistent with counsel\u0027s advice",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Error Uncharacterized in Testimony State"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Report the facts fully while leaving the determination of whether an error was made to the legal process",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Ethical judgment",
    "Discretion in testimony"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "At the deposition",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 11,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer T was not asked if an error had been made and did not offer an acknowledgement of a possible error."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Error Acknowledgement Withholding"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/9#",
    "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/9#Event_Construction_Worker_Injury",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/9#Action_Design_Approach_Selection",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.95",
  "proeth:description": "During construction, an accident occurred while workers were making the structural connections in a contorted fashion in the constrained space, resulting in a serious and permanent injury to a construction worker.",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Serious Permanent Worker Injury",
    "Constrained Access Hazard Realized"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During construction, after issuance of construction documents",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 3,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "This design detail required the construction workers to make the connections in a contorted fashion. During construction, an accident occurred with a serious and permanent injury to a construction worker."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Construction Worker Injury"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/9#",
    "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/9#Event_Alternative_Design_Realization",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.85",
  "proeth:description": "Upon revisiting the site after the accident, Engineer T realized that a fundamentally different, more complex but functionally equivalent design would have allowed workers to make all connections while standing on the floor, making injury far less likely. T came to feel some personal responsibility for the accident.",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Perceived Design Error Concern",
    "Personal Responsibility Feeling"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Following the accident, when Engineer T revisited the site",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 4,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Following the accident, Engineer T revisited the site and realized that had alternative design concepts been explored early on, the new structural modifications could have been proposed in a fundamentally different, more complex, but functionally equivalent way.",
    "Engineer T felt some personal responsibility for the accident."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Alternative Design Realization"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/9#",
    "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/9#Event_Claim_And_Lawsuit_Filing",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.9",
  "proeth:description": "Months after the accident, a construction claim was submitted and a lawsuit was filed, triggering deposition preparation for Engineer T with attorneys for XYZ and its insurance company.",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Litigation Pending"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Months later, after the accident",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 7,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Months later, after a construction claim had been submitted and a lawsuit had been filed, Engineer T met with attorneys representing XYZ and XYZ\u2019s insurance company to prepare for a deposition of Engineer T."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Claim And Lawsuit Filing"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/9#",
    "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/9#Event_Error_Question_Absence",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.65",
  "proeth:description": "During the deposition, no question was posed to Engineer T about whether an error had been made, so the specific circumstance under which T would have had to characterize the design never arose.",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During the deposition",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 10,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer T was not asked if an error had been made and did not offer an acknowledgement of a possible error."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Error Question Absence"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/9#",
    "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/9#CausalChain_1",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "This design detail required the construction workers to make the connections in a contorted fashion. During construction, an accident occurred with a serious and permanent injury to a construction worker.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer T selects the straightforward approach with connections beneath floor level in a tightly constrained space without exploring alternatives",
      "proeth:element": "Design Approach Selection",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer T issues construction documents clearly noting the constrained access",
      "proeth:element": "Construction Documents Issuance",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Workers must make the connections in a contorted fashion due to limited access",
      "proeth:element": "Contorted Construction Work",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "During construction an accident occurs causing serious and permanent injury to a worker",
      "proeth:element": "Construction Worker Injury",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Design Approach Selection",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "The alternative approach \u0027would have allowed the construction workers to make all connections while standing on the floor such that injury would have been far less likely\u0027; the injury would probably not have occurred with the alternative design",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Construction Worker Injury",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Selection of a design approach placing connections immediately beneath floor level in a tightly constrained space",
    "Non-exploration of alternative design concepts that would have allowed workers to stand on the floor",
    "Contractor proceeding to make connections in the constrained location"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer T (design choice) shared with the contractor (construction safety)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Constrained connection location + contorted working posture + absence of contractor safety intervention was jointly sufficient to make serious injury far more likely"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/9#",
    "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/9#CausalChain_2",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "The new structural connections were located in such a way that access was limited, and the drawings clearly noted the constrained access. This design detail required the construction workers to make the connections in a contorted fashion.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer T completes the design within the identified constraints and issues construction documents noting the constrained access",
      "proeth:element": "Construction Documents Issuance",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The contractor accepts the construction risk and responsibility without raising safety questions",
      "proeth:element": "Contractor Acceptance Without Question",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Workers perform connections in a contorted fashion in the constrained space",
      "proeth:element": "Contorted Construction Work",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "An accident during construction causes serious and permanent injury",
      "proeth:element": "Construction Worker Injury",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Construction Documents Issuance",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had the documents not been issued as drawn (or had they been revised after a safety review), workers would not have been placed in the contorted working position and injury would likely have been avoided",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Construction Worker Injury",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Issuance of construction documents embodying the constrained-access detail",
    "Contractor executing the work per the issued documents"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer T (in responsible charge), with contractual safety responsibility on the contractor",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Issued documents specifying constrained connections + contractor performing work as documented + no safety flag raised was jointly sufficient to expose workers to the hazard"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/9#",
    "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/9#CausalChain_3",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Following the accident, Engineer T revisited the site and realized that had alternative design concepts been explored early on, the new structural modifications could have been proposed in a fundamentally different, more complex, but functionally equivalent way.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Serious and permanent injury occurs during construction",
      "proeth:element": "Construction Worker Injury",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer T revisits the site following the accident",
      "proeth:element": "Site Revisit",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer T realizes a fundamentally different, safer, functionally equivalent design was possible and feels personal responsibility",
      "proeth:element": "Alternative Design Realization",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Construction Worker Injury",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the accident, Engineer T would have had no occasion to revisit the site and would likely not have realized the safer alternative existed",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Alternative Design Realization",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Occurrence of the accident prompting the site revisit",
    "Engineer T\u0027s site revisit and reflection on the design",
    "Existence of a feasible, functionally equivalent alternative design"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "indirect",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer T",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Accident + Engineer T\u0027s post-accident site revisit was sufficient to trigger the hindsight realization"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": false
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/9#",
    "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/9#CausalChain_4",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer T met with XYZ\u2019s Chief Structural Engineer, Engineer B, explained the situation, and expressed a belief that a design error \u2013 i.e., not exploring alternative, safer design concepts \u2013 had been made and the NSPE Code of Ethics required that the error be acknowledged.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer T realizes in hindsight a safer alternative design was possible",
      "proeth:element": "Alternative Design Realization",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer T feels some personal responsibility for the accident",
      "proeth:element": "Felt Personal Responsibility",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer T meets Engineer B and expresses a belief that a design error was made and must be acknowledged",
      "proeth:element": "Error Concern Raising",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Alternative Design Realization",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the realization of the safer alternative, Engineer T would have had no basis to believe an error was made or to raise the concern",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Error Concern Raising",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer T\u0027s realization that a safer alternative design existed",
    "Engineer T\u0027s feeling of personal responsibility for the accident",
    "Engineer T\u0027s belief that the NSPE Code required error acknowledgement"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer T",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Realization + felt personal responsibility + perceived Code obligation was sufficient to prompt raising the concern with Engineer B"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/9#",
    "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/9#CausalChain_5",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Having thus thoughtfully considered the matter, both Engineer T and Engineer B decided that the situation did not merit acknowledgement of \u201can error.\u201d",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer T expresses belief that a design error was made and must be acknowledged",
      "proeth:element": "Error Concern Raising",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B explains the firm responded professionally, alternatives were not requested, and T could not have reasonably assessed the safety risk",
      "proeth:element": "Engineer B\u0027s Counter-Reasoning",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Both engineers decide the situation did not merit acknowledgement of an error",
      "proeth:element": "Error Acknowledgement Decision",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Error Concern Raising",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without Engineer T raising the concern, there would have been no deliberation and no explicit joint decision on acknowledgement",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Error Acknowledgement Decision",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer T raising the error concern with Engineer B",
    "Engineer B\u0027s counter-reasoning (standard of care met, no request to consider alternatives, T\u0027s lack of construction safety training, contractor\u0027s silence)",
    "Joint deliberation between T and B"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer T and Engineer B",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The raised concern + Engineer B\u0027s rationale + joint consideration was sufficient to produce the decision not to acknowledge an error"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/9#",
    "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/9#CausalChain_6",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Months later, after a construction claim had been submitted and a lawsuit had been filed, Engineer T met with attorneys representing XYZ and XYZ\u2019s insurance company to prepare for a deposition of Engineer T.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Accident causes serious and permanent injury during construction",
      "proeth:element": "Construction Worker Injury",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Months later a construction claim is submitted and a lawsuit is filed",
      "proeth:element": "Claim And Lawsuit Filing",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer T meets with XYZ\u0027s and the insurer\u0027s attorneys to prepare for deposition",
      "proeth:element": "Deposition Preparation",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Construction Worker Injury",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the worker injury there would have been no basis for the construction claim or lawsuit",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Claim And Lawsuit Filing",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Occurrence of the serious and permanent injury",
    "Injured party\u0027s (or claimant\u0027s) decision to pursue a claim and lawsuit"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "indirect",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Injured worker/claimant (initiating legal process); underlying harm shared among project parties",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Serious permanent injury + claimant\u0027s pursuit of legal remedy was sufficient to produce the claim and lawsuit"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": false
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/9#",
    "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/9#CausalChain_7",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Months later, after a construction claim had been submitted and a lawsuit had been filed, Engineer T met with attorneys representing XYZ and XYZ\u2019s insurance company to prepare for a deposition of Engineer T.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "A construction claim is submitted and a lawsuit is filed",
      "proeth:element": "Claim And Lawsuit Filing",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer T reviews project history with XYZ\u0027s and the insurer\u0027s attorneys",
      "proeth:element": "Deposition Preparation Meeting",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Attorneys advise complete transparency and factual answers but that T should not voluntarily characterize the work as an error",
      "proeth:element": "Legal Counsel Advising",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Claim And Lawsuit Filing",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the claim and lawsuit, there would have been no deposition and no occasion for the attorneys\u0027 advice",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Legal Counsel Advising",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Filing of the claim and lawsuit",
    "Scheduling of Engineer T\u0027s deposition",
    "XYZ\u0027s and insurer\u0027s engagement of attorneys"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "XYZ Consulting Engineers\u0027 and insurer\u0027s attorneys",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Lawsuit + impending deposition of Engineer T was sufficient to necessitate attorney preparation and advice"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/9#",
    "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/9#CausalChain_8",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Both of XYZ Consulting Engineers\u2019 attorneys agreed that a clear obligation existed not to distort or alter any facts, and that Engineer T should respond to questions with complete transparency during the deposition.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Attorneys advise complete transparency and clear reporting of facts",
      "proeth:element": "Legal Counsel Advising",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer T responds factually to all questions regarding the design and the design process",
      "proeth:element": "Factual Deposition Testimony",
      "proeth:step": 2
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Legal Counsel Advising",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Engineer T\u0027s ethical obligation to be truthful likely would have produced factual testimony even without the advice, but the advice reinforced and shaped the testimony",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Factual Deposition Testimony",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Attorneys\u0027 instruction to respond with complete transparency and not distort facts",
    "Engineer T\u0027s willingness to follow counsel and testify honestly",
    "Deposition questions being posed about the design and design process"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer T",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Attorneys\u0027 advice + Engineer T\u0027s own commitment to honesty was sufficient to produce fully factual testimony"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/9#",
    "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/9#CausalChain_9",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "The attorneys indicated that the legal process would determine whether, based on the facts, an error had been made, and that Engineer T should clearly report the facts, but should not voluntarily characterize the design work as an error.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer T and Engineer B decide the situation did not merit acknowledgement of an error",
      "proeth:element": "Error Acknowledgement Decision",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Attorneys advise T to report facts but not voluntarily characterize the work as an error",
      "proeth:element": "Legal Counsel Advising",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "No deposition question is posed about whether an error was made",
      "proeth:element": "Error Question Absence",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer T does not offer an acknowledgement of a possible error",
      "proeth:element": "Error Acknowledgement Withholding",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Legal Counsel Advising",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the attorneys\u0027 advice, Engineer T\u2014who had originally believed an error was made\u2014might have volunteered an acknowledgement; the prior decision with B alone might also have led to withholding, so the advice is a NESS contributor rather than strictly necessary",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Error Acknowledgement Withholding",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Attorneys\u0027 explicit advice not to voluntarily characterize the work as an error",
    "Engineer T\u0027s and Engineer B\u0027s earlier joint decision that no error acknowledgement was merited",
    "Absence of any deposition question about whether an error was made"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer T, with contributing influence of XYZ\u0027s attorneys and Engineer B",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Attorneys\u0027 advice + prior decision with Engineer B + no direct question posed was jointly sufficient for Engineer T to withhold any error acknowledgement"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/9#",
    "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/9#CausalChain_10",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer T was not asked if an error had been made and did not offer an acknowledgement of a possible error.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer T responds factually to all questions posed",
      "proeth:element": "Factual Deposition Testimony",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "No question is asked about whether an error was made",
      "proeth:element": "Error Question Absence",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer T does not volunteer an acknowledgement of a possible error",
      "proeth:element": "Error Acknowledgement Withholding",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Error Question Absence",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had the question been asked, Engineer T\u2014obligated to complete transparency\u2014would have had to address the error issue directly rather than withhold it",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Error Acknowledgement Withholding",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Absence of any direct question about an error during the deposition",
    "Attorneys\u0027 instruction not to volunteer an error characterization",
    "Engineer T\u0027s compliance with counsel"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "indirect",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer T (conduct); opposing counsel (questioning scope)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "No direct question + advice against volunteering + T\u0027s compliance was sufficient for the acknowledgement never to be made"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": false
}