Step 4: Case Synthesis
Build a coherent case model from extracted entities
Withholding Information Useful to Client/Public Agency
Step 4 of 5
Four-Phase Synthesis Pipeline
1
Entity Foundation
Passes 1-3
2
Analytical Extraction
2A-2E
3
Decision Synthesis
E1-E3 + LLM
4
Narrative
Timeline + Scenario
Phase 1 Entity Foundation
76 entitiesPass 1: Contextual Framework
- 6 Roles
- 14 States
- 3 Resources
Pass 2: Normative Requirements
- 5 Principles
- 8 Obligations
- 6 Constraints
- 10 Capabilities
Pass 3: Temporal Dynamics
- 24 Temporal Dynamics
Phase 2 Analytical Extraction
2A: Code Provisions 4
LLM detect
algorithmic linking
Case text + Phase 1 entities
I.4.
Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
II.1.f.
Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to p...
III.7.
Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment...
III.8.a.
Engineers shall conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering.
2B: Precedent Cases 1
LLM extraction
Case text
BER Case 96-8
supporting
linked
2C: Questions & Conclusions 14 14
Board text parsed
LLM analytical Q&C
LLM Q-C linking
Case text + 2A provisions
Questions (14)
Question_1
What are Engineer A’s ethical obligations under these facts?
Question_101
Does Engineer A's status as a competitor and the fact that Client L is a former client raise a question about whether Engineer A's motives in pursuing...
Question_102
Does Engineer A have any obligation to inform Client L directly that XYZ Engineering may lack a certificate of authority in State P, given the potenti...
Question_103
How should Engineer A determine how much time to allow for collegial clarification before escalating to a formal report, given that unreasonable delay...
Question_104
If Engineer X's explanation reveals that the missing certificate of authority was inadvertent and quickly remedied, does Engineer A still bear an obli...
Question_201
How should Engineer A balance the duty of Collegial Counseling of Engineer X against the Licensure Compliance in State P principle, which may require ...
Question_202
Does Engineer A's Independent Judgment in Business Practice, which could be shaped by competitive interest in a former client, conflict with the impar...
Question_203
How should Engineer A reconcile the obligation of Collegial Counseling of Engineer X with the risk that raising the licensure issue directly could be ...
Question_204
Is there a tension between Certificate of Authority Compliance as a strict licensure rule and the more flexible, relationship-based approach embodied ...
Question_301
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill the duty to seek clarification (collegial consultation) before invoking the reporting obligat...
Question_302
Did the likely outcome of preserving licensure integrity and public protection in State P justify Engineer A's approach of first privately consulting ...
Question_303
Did Engineer A act with professional integrity and collegiality by choosing to engage Engineer X directly for clarification rather than assuming misco...
Question_401
If Client L had never been a former client of Engineer A's firm, would the Board still have found that Engineer A had a proper basis to approach Engin...
Question_402
If XYZ Engineering had in fact possessed a valid certificate of authority to practice in State P, would Engineer A have had any obligation at all to c...
Conclusions (14)
Conclusion_1
Engineer A should communicate with Engineer X to obtain clarification regarding the matter in question. If Engineer A is not sufficiently satisfied wi...
Conclusion_101
The Board's recommendation implicitly separates the factual question (does XYZ Engineering lack a certificate of authority) from the motivational ques...
Conclusion_102
The Board's conclusion establishes a two-stage process (collegial clarification, then possible reporting) but does not specify a time limit for the fi...
Conclusion_103
The Board's recommendation does not resolve whether a prompt, voluntary correction by Engineer X (e.g., immediately obtaining the certificate of autho...
Conclusion_201
Regarding Q101, the fact that Engineer A is both a business competitor of Engineer X and previously served Client L does not by itself compromise the ...
Conclusion_202
Regarding Q102, Engineer A's ethical duties under the Code run primarily to the profession and the licensure board rather than directly to Client L. N...
Conclusion_203
Regarding Q104, if Engineer X's clarification shows the lapse was inadvertent and has since been corrected, Engineer A's collegial consultation duty w...
Conclusion_204
Regarding Q301, from a deontological standpoint the Code does not mandate immediate reporting under II.1.f before any clarification is sought. Enginee...
Conclusion_205
Regarding Q302, from a consequentialist perspective, Engineer A's approach of first privately consulting Engineer X is likely to produce the best over...
Conclusion_206
Regarding Q401, even absent any former client relationship between Engineer A and Client L, the Board's reasoning would likely still favor a collegial...
Conclusion_207
Regarding Q402, if XYZ Engineering had possessed a valid certificate of authority in State P, no ethical obligation would have arisen for Engineer A t...
Conclusion_301
The Board resolved the apparent tension between Collegial Counseling of Engineer X and Licensure Compliance in State P not by ranking one principle ab...
Conclusion_302
The risk that Engineer A's Independent Judgment in Business Practice could be tainted by competitive self-interest toward a former client is managed p...
Conclusion_303
Certificate of Authority Compliance operates in this case as a strict, non-negotiable rule (a licensure fact either exists or does not), whereas Colle...
LLM classification
Phase 1 entities + 2C Q&C
Engineer A's obligation transfers conditionally from an informal, relationship-based duty (collegial clarification with Engineer X) to a formal, rule-based duty (reporting to the State P licensure board) only if the collegial stage fails to resolve the apparent violation—an obligation handoff contingent on the outcome of Stage 1.
Reasoning
The Board's resolution (C1, C12) establishes a sequential handoff: Engineer A's obligation begins as an informal 'Collegial Consultation Duty' toward Engineer X, and if that stage fails to resolve the matter, the obligation shifts into a new scenario set—formal reporting to the state licensure board. This matches the Transfer pattern's 'shifts from a scenario set to a new one,' since the duty does not oscillate back and forth nor remain permanently unresolved; it moves forward in one direction from peer-level clarification to institutional enforcement.
LLM batched analysis
label-to-URI resolution
Phase 1 entities + 2C Q&C + 2A provisions
Causal-Normative Links (4)
CausalLink_Engineer Retention
Engineer Retention, though carrying no direct normative fulfillment or violation itself, sets the causal chain in motion that later exposes Engineer X...
CausalLink_Certificate Omission
Certificate Omission violates the Compliance with State Engineering Licensure Laws obligation, and this violation is precisely what causes the Certifi...
CausalLink_Collegial Counseling Discussion
Collegial Counseling Discussion fulfills the obligation to engage collegially and cooperatively, and because it is guided by collegiality, avoiding pr...
CausalLink_Certificate Acquisition
Certificate Acquisition fulfills the Compliance with State Engineering Licensure Laws obligation, directly remedying the earlier violation caused by C...
Question Emergence (14)
QuestionEmergence_1
The question arises because Engineer A, as a competitor and former colleague of Engineer X, possesses knowledge of a licensure deficiency that could b...
QuestionEmergence_2
The question arises because Engineer A's dual identity as competitor and former service provider to Client L makes his otherwise legitimate licensure ...
QuestionEmergence_3
The question arises because Engineer A possesses information that could materially affect Client L's legal position, yet professional norms of collegi...
QuestionEmergence_4
The question arises because Toulmin's model shows two valid obligations, collegial engagement and timely reporting, both authorized by the same trigge...
QuestionEmergence_5
The question arose because Engineer A's collegial engagement with Engineer X produced a satisfactory factual explanation and correction, creating tens...
QuestionEmergence_6
The question arises because the same fact pattern, an unlicensed firm practicing in State P, supports two legitimate but conflicting professional obli...
QuestionEmergence_7
The question arises because the same set of facts, a former client relationship and a discovered licensure deficiency, can be interpreted either as le...
QuestionEmergence_8
The question arises because the same fact, Engineer A's knowledge of XYZ's licensure gap, supports both a collegial duty to inform a peer and a compet...
QuestionEmergence_9
The question arose because Engineer A possesses both a formal enforcement obligation and a collegial relationship with Engineer X, and the facts do no...
QuestionEmergence_10
The question arose because Engineer A faced a deficiency that could be either an innocent oversight or a genuine violation, and the Code's language le...
QuestionEmergence_11
The question arises because Engineer A's knowledge of a possible licensure gap creates two plausible, competing obligations, immediate public protecti...
QuestionEmergence_12
The question arises because Engineer A possesses knowledge of a potential licensure deficiency by a business competitor, creating tension between a du...
QuestionEmergence_13
The question arises because the Board's finding of propriety rests on a specific factual anchor, the former client relationship, and removing that anc...
QuestionEmergence_14
The question arises because it isolates whether Engineer A's obligation depends strictly on the factual existence of a licensure violation or on some ...
Resolution Patterns (14)
ResolutionPattern_1
Given that Engineer A only suspects, rather than confirms, that XYZ Engineering lacks a certificate of authority, the Board concluded that collegial c...
ResolutionPattern_2
Given that Engineer A's competitive relationship with Engineer X and prior relationship with Client L do not by themselves negate legitimate knowledge...
ResolutionPattern_3
Because the Board's two-stage process leaves the clarification period undefined, it follows that Engineer A must act with reasonable promptness so tha...
ResolutionPattern_4
Assuming Engineer X's lapse was inadvertent and promptly cured, the Board's rationale supports treating the collegial resolution as sufficient, since ...
ResolutionPattern_5
Given that Engineer A's business relationships do not themselves undermine the legitimacy of the licensure concern, the Board concluded that the repor...
ResolutionPattern_6
Because Client L was only a former client and the Code's provisions on reporting and registration compliance are framed toward the profession and lice...
ResolutionPattern_7
Given that Engineer X's clarification revealed an inadvertent and already-corrected certificate lapse, the board concluded that Engineer A's collegial...
ResolutionPattern_8
Because the certificate deficiency was not yet confirmed as a genuine, unremedied violation, the board concluded that seeking clarification from Engin...
ResolutionPattern_9
Given that formal escalation remained available as a fallback, the board concluded that Engineer A's choice to first consult Engineer X privately was ...
ResolutionPattern_10
Even supposing Client L had never been Engineer A's client, the board concluded that the collegial consultation duty toward Engineer X would still app...
ResolutionPattern_11
Given that the entire chain of obligations rests on an apparent violation of III.8.a, the board concluded that if that predicate fact were absent, Eng...
ResolutionPattern_12
Given that a collegial path to Engineer X was open and the underlying fact was only an apparent violation pending explanation, the board reasoned that...
ResolutionPattern_13
Given that Client L's status as a former client and Engineer A's position as a competitor created a plausible motive for bias, the board concluded tha...
ResolutionPattern_14
Given that Certificate of Authority Compliance depends on an objective fact while Collegial Counseling concerns interpersonal manner, the board conclu...
Decision Point Synthesis (E1-E3 + Q&C Alignment + LLM)
E1-E3 algorithmic
Q&C scoring
LLM refinement
Phase 1 entities + 2C Q&C + 2E rich analysis
E1
Obligation Coverage
-
Obligation Coverage
-
E2
Action Mapping
-
Action Mapping
-
E3
Composition
-
Composition
-
Q&C
Alignment
-
Alignment
-
LLM
Refinement
-
Refinement
-
Phase 4 Narrative Construction
Narrative Elements (Event Calculus + Scenario Seeds)
algorithmic base
LLM enhancement
Phase 1 entities + Phase 3 decision points
4.1
Characters
-
Characters
-
4.2
Timeline
-
Timeline
-
4.3
Conflicts
-
Conflicts
-
4.4
Decisions
-
Decisions
-