Overview
Facts Discussion
Provenance Draft

PASS 1: Contextual Framework Facts Section

Case 94: Failure to Disclose Full Impact of Development

R Roles
0
Classes
4
Individuals
S States
0
Classes
5
Individuals
Rs Resources
0
Classes
6
Individuals

Extracted Ontology Entities

15 RDF entities extracted organized by concept type

R Roles

Roles Classes
0
No new roles classes were identified in this section.
Roles Individuals
4
No new roles classes were discovered - the 4 individual(s) below reference existing classes from the ontology.
changed
City Planning Board City Planning Board Regulatory Authority
City Planning Board Regulatory Authority
Linked
City Planning Board Regulatory Authority
C94
Text References:
"Engineer A is required to attend a public hearing and present the proposed design for the City X waterfront to the City Planning Board"
"Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board"
Importance: high
Confidence: 0.95
Role Class: City Planning Board Regulatory Authority
Role Category: public_responsibility
Case Involvement: Reviews and questions Engineer A's presentation of the proposed waterfront development design; receives testimony from multiple witnesses including engineers about traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts.
Jurisdiction: City X
Function: Development project approval via public hearing
Reviews: Engineer A
Receives testimony from: Other Engineers at Public Hearing
[facts] "Engineer A is required to attend a public hearing and present the proposed design for the City X waterfront to the City Planning Board"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • attributes: {'jurisdiction': 'City X', 'function': 'Development project approval via public hearing'}
  • relationships: {'type': 'reviews', 'target': 'Engineer A'}; {'type': 'receives_testimony_from', 'target': 'Other Engineers at Public Hearing'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A is required to attend a public hearing and present the proposed design for the City X waterfront to the City Planning Board; Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board
  • importance content: high
  • roleClass content: City Planning Board Regulatory Authority
  • roleCategory content: public_responsibility
  • caseInvolvement content: Reviews and questions Engineer A's presentation of the proposed waterfront development design; receives testimony from multiple witnesses including engineers about traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts.
  • confidence assessment: 0.95
changed
Linked
Developer Client
C94
Text References:
"Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X"
Importance: high
Confidence: 0.95
Role Class: Developer Client
Role Category: provider_client
Case Involvement: Retains Engineer A to design and present a major waterfront development project in City X, converting an industrial waterfront to a commercial/parkland development.
Project type: Major waterfront development
Location: City X
Retains: Engineer A
[facts] "Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • attributes: {'project_type': 'Major waterfront development', 'location': 'City X'}
  • relationships: {'type': 'retains', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X
  • importance content: high
  • roleClass content: Developer Client
  • roleCategory content: provider_client
  • caseInvolvement content: Retains Engineer A to design and present a major waterfront development project in City X, converting an industrial waterfront to a commercial/parkland development.
  • confidence assessment: 0.95
changed
Engineer A Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer
Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer
Linked
Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer
C94
Text References:
"Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project"
"Engineer A is required to attend a public hearing and present the proposed design"
"Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect"
"Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact"
Importance: high
Confidence: 0.95
Role Class: Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer
Role Category: provider_client
Case Involvement: Retained by Developer F to present the proposed waterfront development design to the City Planning Board at a public hearing. Highlighted environmental benefits but did not volunteer information about increased traffic, air, and noise pollution when not directly questioned.
License: Professional Engineer
Specialty: Waterfront development design
Ethical tension: Omission of adverse environmental impact data not specifically requested
Client: Developer F
Regulatory audience: City Planning Board
Peer: Other Engineers at Public Hearing
[facts] "Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Waterfront development design', 'ethical_tension': 'Omission of adverse environmental impact data not specifically requested'}
  • relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Developer F'}; {'type': 'regulatory_audience', 'target': 'City Planning Board'}; {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Other Engineers at Public Hearing'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project; Engineer A is required to attend a public hearing and present the proposed design; Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect; Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact
  • importance content: high
  • roleClass content: Public Hearing Presenting Consulting Engineer
  • roleCategory content: provider_client
  • caseInvolvement content: Retained by Developer F to present the proposed waterfront development design to the City Planning Board at a public hearing. Highlighted environmental benefits but did not volunteer information about increased traffic, air, and noise pollution when not directly questioned.
  • confidence assessment: 0.95
changed
Other Engineers Public Hearing Witness Engineer
Public Hearing Witness Engineer
Linked
Public Hearing Witness Engineer
C94
Text References:
"other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues"
Importance: medium
Confidence: 0.92
Role Class: Public Hearing Witness Engineer
Role Category: public_responsibility
Case Involvement: Independent engineers attending the public hearing who provide testimony about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues associated with the proposed waterfront development, information that Engineer A did not volunteer.
Testimony subject: Traffic, air pollution, and noise pollution impacts
Independence: Not retained by Developer F
Testifies before: City Planning Board
Peer: Engineer A
[facts] "other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • attributes: {'testimony_subject': 'Traffic, air pollution, and noise pollution impacts', 'independence': 'Not retained by Developer F'}
  • relationships: {'type': 'testifies_before', 'target': 'City Planning Board'}; {'type': 'peer', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues
  • importance content: medium
  • roleClass content: Public Hearing Witness Engineer
  • roleCategory content: public_responsibility
  • caseInvolvement content: Independent engineers attending the public hearing who provide testimony about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues associated with the proposed waterfront development, information that Engineer A did not volunteer.
  • confidence assessment: 0.92

S States

States Classes
0
No new states classes were identified in this section.
States Individuals
5
No new states classes were discovered - the 5 individual(s) below reference existing classes from the ontology.
changed
Linked
Undisclosed Risk State
C94
Text References:
"the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution"
"Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact"
Importance: high
Confidence: 0.88
State Class: Undisclosed Risk State
Subject: Engineer A's awareness of traffic, air, and noise pollution impacts from the development
Active Period: From Engineer A's awareness of adverse impacts through the public hearing, until other witnesses raise the issues
Triggering Event: Engineer A is aware that the commercial development will increase traffic, air pollution, and noise pollution but does not volunteer this information during testimony
Terminated By: Other witnesses testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues at the same hearing
Affected Parties:
  • City X Planning Board
  • Public/Community members
  • Engineer A
  • Developer F
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • affectedParties: City X Planning Board; Public/Community members; Engineer A; Developer F
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution; Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact
  • importance content: high
  • stateClass content: Undisclosed Risk State
  • subject content: Engineer A's awareness of traffic, air, and noise pollution impacts from the development
  • activePeriod content: From Engineer A's awareness of adverse impacts through the public hearing, until other witnesses raise the issues
  • triggeringEvent content: Engineer A is aware that the commercial development will increase traffic, air pollution, and noise pollution but does not volunteer this information during testimony
  • terminatedBy content: Other witnesses testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues at the same hearing
  • confidence assessment: 0.88
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium
changed
Engineer A Selective Testimony at Planning Board Hearing
Selective Testimony Completeness Judgment State
Linked
Selective Testimony Completeness Judgment State
C94
Text References:
"Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland"
"it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution"
"Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact"
"Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues"
"other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues"
Importance: high
Confidence: 0.97
State Class: Selective Testimony Completeness Judgment State
Subject: Engineer A's testimony before City X Planning Board on behalf of Developer F
Active Period: From Engineer A's public hearing presentation through subsequent testimony by other witnesses
Triggering Event: Engineer A presents the waterfront development design at the public hearing, responds only to questions asked, and does not volunteer known adverse impacts (traffic, air, noise pollution)
Terminated By: Other witnesses, including other engineers, subsequently testify about the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues, completing the public record
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer A
  • Developer F
  • City X Planning Board
  • Public/Community members
  • Other engineers testifying
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • affectedParties: Engineer A; Developer F; City X Planning Board; Public/Community members; Other engineers testifying
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland; it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution; Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact; Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues; other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues
  • importance content: high
  • stateClass content: Selective Testimony Completeness Judgment State
  • subject content: Engineer A's testimony before City X Planning Board on behalf of Developer F
  • activePeriod content: From Engineer A's public hearing presentation through subsequent testimony by other witnesses
  • triggeringEvent content: Engineer A presents the waterfront development design at the public hearing, responds only to questions asked, and does not volunteer known adverse impacts (traffic, air, noise pollution)
  • terminatedBy content: Other witnesses, including other engineers, subsequently testify about the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues, completing the public record
  • confidence assessment: 0.97
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium
changed
Engineer A Retained by Developer F
Client Relationship Established
Linked
Client Relationship Established
C94
Text References:
"Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X"
Importance: medium
Confidence: 0.98
State Class: Client Relationship Established
Subject: Professional relationship between Engineer A and Developer F
Active Period: From retention through at least the public hearing presentation
Triggering Event: Developer F retains Engineer A for the major waterfront development project
Terminated By: Not indicated in the case text
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer A
  • Developer F
Urgency Level: low
[facts] "Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • affectedParties: Engineer A; Developer F
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A is retained by Developer F for a major waterfront development project in City X
  • importance content: medium
  • stateClass content: Client Relationship Established
  • subject content: Professional relationship between Engineer A and Developer F
  • activePeriod content: From retention through at least the public hearing presentation
  • triggeringEvent content: Developer F retains Engineer A for the major waterfront development project
  • terminatedBy content: Not indicated in the case text
  • confidence assessment: 0.98
  • urgencyLevel assessment: low
changed
Multi-Engineer Testimony on Omitted Adverse Impacts at Public Hearing
Professional Opinion Conflict at Public Hearing State
Linked
Professional Opinion Conflict at Public Hearing State
C94
Text References:
"other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues"
Importance: medium
Confidence: 0.82
State Class: Professional Opinion Conflict at Public Hearing State
Subject: Divergence between Engineer A's selective presentation and subsequent testimony by other engineers on adverse impacts
Active Period: From the point other witnesses testify about traffic, noise, and air pollution through the close of the public hearing
Triggering Event: Other engineers and witnesses testify about the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues that Engineer A did not volunteer
Terminated By: Conclusion of the public hearing
Affected Parties:
  • Engineer A
  • Other engineers testifying
  • City X Planning Board
  • Developer F
  • Public
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • affectedParties: Engineer A; Other engineers testifying; City X Planning Board; Developer F; Public
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues
  • importance content: medium
  • stateClass content: Professional Opinion Conflict at Public Hearing State
  • subject content: Divergence between Engineer A's selective presentation and subsequent testimony by other engineers on adverse impacts
  • activePeriod content: From the point other witnesses testify about traffic, noise, and air pollution through the close of the public hearing
  • triggeringEvent content: Other engineers and witnesses testify about the traffic, noise, and air pollution issues that Engineer A did not volunteer
  • terminatedBy content: Conclusion of the public hearing
  • confidence assessment: 0.82
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium
changed
Linked
Competing Public Goods Tension State
C94
Text References:
"Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland"
"it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution"
Importance: high
Confidence: 0.87
State Class: Competing Public Goods Tension State
Subject: The waterfront development project's dual nature, environmental improvement and commercial-use adverse impacts
Active Period: Throughout the public hearing and planning process
Triggering Event: Engineer A presents environmental benefits of converting industrial waterfront to parkland while being aware of countervailing commercial development impacts
Terminated By: Not resolved within the case text; planning board decision pending
Affected Parties:
  • City X Planning Board
  • Developer F
  • Engineer A
  • Public/Community members
Urgency Level: medium
[facts] "Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • affectedParties: City X Planning Board; Developer F; Engineer A; Public/Community members
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland; it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution
  • importance content: high
  • stateClass content: Competing Public Goods Tension State
  • subject content: The waterfront development project's dual nature, environmental improvement and commercial-use adverse impacts
  • activePeriod content: Throughout the public hearing and planning process
  • triggeringEvent content: Engineer A presents environmental benefits of converting industrial waterfront to parkland while being aware of countervailing commercial development impacts
  • terminatedBy content: Not resolved within the case text; planning board decision pending
  • confidence assessment: 0.87
  • urgencyLevel assessment: medium

Rs Resources

Resources Classes
0
No new resources classes were identified in this section.
Resources Individuals
6
No new resources classes were discovered - the 6 individual(s) below reference existing classes from the ontology.
changed
Environmental-Impact-Disclosure-Standard
Environmental Impact Disclosure Standard
Linked
Environmental Impact Disclosure Standard
C94
Text References:
"Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland"
"the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution"
"Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact"
Importance: high
Confidence: 0.88
Resource Class: Environmental Impact Disclosure Standard
Document Title: Environmental Impact Disclosure Standard
Created By: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (derived from BER case analysis)
Used By: Engineer A in presenting the waterfront development design to the City Planning Board
Used In Context: Governs Engineer A's duty to disclose all material environmental findings, including adverse impacts such as increased traffic, air, and noise pollution, when presenting a development proposal to a public authority, and whether selective omission of adverse environmental information is ethically permissible
[facts] "Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • usedBy: Engineer A in presenting the waterfront development design to the City Planning Board
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland; the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution; Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact
  • importance content: high
  • resourceClass content: Environmental Impact Disclosure Standard
  • documentTitle content: Environmental Impact Disclosure Standard
  • createdBy content: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (derived from BER case analysis)
  • usedInContext content: Governs Engineer A's duty to disclose all material environmental findings, including adverse impacts such as increased traffic, air, and noise pollution, when presenting a development proposal to a public authority, and whether selective omission of adverse environmental information is ethically permissible
  • confidence assessment: 0.88
changed
Engineer-Selective-Disclosure-Standard
Engineer Selective Disclosure Standard
Linked
Engineer Selective Disclosure Standard
C94
Text References:
"Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact"
"Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues"
Importance: high
Confidence: 0.95
Resource Class: Engineer Selective Disclosure Standard
Document Title: Engineer Selective Disclosure Standard
Created By: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (derived from BER case analysis)
Used By: Engineer A during public hearing presentation to City Planning Board
Used In Context: Governs whether Engineer A was ethically obligated to volunteer information about traffic, air, and noise pollution impacts at the public hearing when not specifically questioned about them; establishes the threshold between permissible selective emphasis and impermissible material omission in public testimony
[facts] "Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • usedBy: Engineer A during public hearing presentation to City Planning Board
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact; Had Engineer A been questioned by the City Planning Board, Engineer A would have provided testimony concerning these issues
  • importance content: high
  • resourceClass content: Engineer Selective Disclosure Standard
  • documentTitle content: Engineer Selective Disclosure Standard
  • createdBy content: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (derived from BER case analysis)
  • usedInContext content: Governs whether Engineer A was ethically obligated to volunteer information about traffic, air, and noise pollution impacts at the public hearing when not specifically questioned about them; establishes the threshold between permissible selective emphasis and impermissible material omission in public testimony
  • confidence assessment: 0.95
changed
Public-Interest-Balancing-Framework
Public Interest Balancing Framework
Linked
Public Interest Balancing Framework
C94
Text References:
"Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland"
"the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution"
"Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues"
Importance: medium
Confidence: 0.82
Resource Class: Public Interest Balancing Framework
Document Title: Public Interest Balancing Framework
Created By: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (derived from BER case analysis)
Used By: Engineer A in determining what information to present and withhold during the public hearing
Used In Context: Provides a decision framework for weighing Engineer A's obligations to Developer F (client) against obligations to the City Planning Board and the broader public, particularly regarding disclosure of both beneficial and adverse project impacts
[facts] "Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • usedBy: Engineer A in determining what information to present and withhold during the public hearing
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland; the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution; Later, other witnesses attending the public hearing (including other engineers) testify about the increased traffic, noise, and air pollution issues
  • importance content: medium
  • resourceClass content: Public Interest Balancing Framework
  • documentTitle content: Public Interest Balancing Framework
  • createdBy content: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (derived from BER case analysis)
  • usedInContext content: Provides a decision framework for weighing Engineer A's obligations to Developer F (client) against obligations to the City Planning Board and the broader public, particularly regarding disclosure of both beneficial and adverse project impacts
  • confidence assessment: 0.82
changed
Professional-Report-Integrity-Standard
Professional Report Integrity Standard
Linked
Professional Report Integrity Standard
C94
Text References:
"Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland"
"it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution"
"Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact"
Importance: medium
Confidence: 0.78
Resource Class: Professional Report Integrity Standard
Document Title: Professional Report Integrity Standard
Created By: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (derived from BER case analysis)
Used By: Engineer A in structuring the public hearing presentation
Used In Context: Establishes norms against selective omission of material facts in professional communications to public bodies; relevant to whether Engineer A's presentation, which emphasized benefits while omitting known adverse impacts, constitutes a misleading framing of the project
[facts] "Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • usedBy: Engineer A in structuring the public hearing presentation
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A highlights the improved environmental effect of converting the waterfront from an industrial facility to a parkland; it is also true the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as air and noise pollution; Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact
  • importance content: medium
  • resourceClass content: Professional Report Integrity Standard
  • documentTitle content: Professional Report Integrity Standard
  • createdBy content: NSPE Board of Ethical Review (derived from BER case analysis)
  • usedInContext content: Establishes norms against selective omission of material facts in professional communications to public bodies; relevant to whether Engineer A's presentation, which emphasized benefits while omitting known adverse impacts, constitutes a misleading framing of the project
  • confidence assessment: 0.78
changed
Linked
BER Case Precedent
C94
Text References:
"Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board"
"Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact"
Importance: medium
Confidence: 0.8
Resource Class: BER Case Precedent
Document Title: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Prior Cases on Engineer Testimony and Selective Disclosure
Created By: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
Used By: BER analysis of Engineer A's conduct at the City Planning Board hearing
Used In Context: Prior BER decisions establishing analogical reasoning patterns for cases where engineers present technical findings in public forums and must determine the scope of their disclosure obligations when not directly questioned about adverse impacts
[facts] "Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • usedBy: BER analysis of Engineer A's conduct at the City Planning Board hearing
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board; Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact
  • importance content: medium
  • resourceClass content: BER Case Precedent
  • documentTitle content: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Prior Cases on Engineer Testimony and Selective Disclosure
  • createdBy content: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
  • usedInContext content: Prior BER decisions establishing analogical reasoning patterns for cases where engineers present technical findings in public forums and must determine the scope of their disclosure obligations when not directly questioned about adverse impacts
  • confidence assessment: 0.8
changed
NSPE-Code-of-Ethics
Professional Code
Linked
Professional Code
C94
Text References:
"Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board"
"Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact"
Importance: high
Confidence: 0.97
Resource Class: Professional Code
Document Title: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
Created By: National Society of Professional Engineers
Version: Current at time of case
Used By: Engineer A in preparing and delivering testimony to the City Planning Board
Used In Context: Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligation to be objective and truthful in public testimony, and the extent to which material information must be volunteered versus disclosed only when questioned
[facts] "Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board"
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • usedBy: Engineer A in preparing and delivering testimony to the City Planning Board
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • textReferences content: Engineer A makes a presentation and responds to questions by members of the City Planning Board; Engineer A is aware of these factors, but was not specifically questioned on these factors and does not volunteer this fact
  • importance content: high
  • resourceClass content: Professional Code
  • documentTitle content: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
  • createdBy content: National Society of Professional Engineers
  • version content: Current at time of case
  • usedInContext content: Primary normative authority governing Engineer A's obligation to be objective and truthful in public testimony, and the extent to which material information must be volunteered versus disclosed only when questioned
  • confidence assessment: 0.97
Pass 1: Contextual Framework - Facts
Review extracted entities, then continue to the next step
Continue to Discussion Review

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3 | Report Issue