This page shows the pre-commit working store (the raw extraction under review). This case was committed to OntServe on 2026-07-25 14:26; 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 97: Confidentiality of Engineering Report

24 entities 7 actions 3 events 6 causal chains 7 temporal relations
Timeline Overview
Action Event 10 sequenced markers
Inspection Service Offering Before the client engagement, as an ongoing business practice
Inspection Engagement Acceptance At the start of the client engagement
Inspection and Report Preparation During the engagement, before report submission
Report Submission to Client Following the inspection
Unauthorized Report Disclosure At the time of report submission to the client
Failure to Recognize Confidentiality At the time of deciding to send the carbon copy
Client Complaint Filing After receiving the report and noting the carbon copy notation
Adverse Party Report Receipt Simultaneous with report submission to the client
Client Disclosure Awareness Upon receipt of the submitted report
Bargaining Position Reduction Following the disclosure of the report to the real estate firm
OWL-Time Temporal Structure 7 relations time: = w3.org/2006/time
client engagement of Engineer A (agreement for inspection services for a fee) time:intervalBefore engineering inspection of the residence
engineering inspection of the residence time:intervalBefore preparation of the one-page written report
preparation of the written report time:intervalBefore submission of the report to the client
submission of report to the client time:intervalEquals sending of carbon copy to the real estate firm
sending of carbon copy to the real estate firm time:intervalBefore client's objection and complaint of unethical conduct
clients' consideration of purchasing the residence (negotiation period) time:intervalOverlaps inspection and report events
all case events (inspection, report, disclosure, objection) time:intervalBefore Board's retrospective Discussion and ethical analysis
Extracted Actions (7)
Volitional professional decisions with intentions and ethical context

Description: Engineer A established and offered a homeowner inspection service for prospective purchasers of residences, providing a written report after each inspection.

Temporal Marker: Before the client engagement, as an ongoing business practice interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Inspection Service Available

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Provide engineering inspection services to prospective home purchasers for a fee

Required Capabilities:
Residential engineering inspection Report writing
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • requiresCapability: Residential engineering inspection; Report writing
  • initiates: Inspection Service Available
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A established and offered a homeowner inspection service for prospective purchasers of residences, providing a written report after each inspection.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: Before the client engagement, as an ongoing business practice
  • eventRoleContext content: Consulting Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Provide engineering inspection services to prospective home purchasers for a fee
  • textReferences content: Engineer A offers a homeowner inspection service, whereby he undertakes to perform an engineering inspection of residences by prospective purchasers.
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 1
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/97#",
    "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/97#Action_Inspection_Service_Offering",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T10:04:27.382090+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A established and offered a homeowner inspection service for prospective purchasers of residences, providing a written report after each inspection.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Consulting Engineer",
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Inspection Service Available"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Provide engineering inspection services to prospective home purchasers for a fee",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Residential engineering inspection",
    "Report writing"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Before the client engagement, as an ongoing business practice",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 1,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A offers a homeowner inspection service, whereby he undertakes to perform an engineering inspection of residences by prospective purchasers."
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Inspection Service Offering"
}

Description: Engineer A accepted an engagement from a husband and wife client, for a fee, to inspect a residence they were considering purchasing.

Temporal Marker: At the start of the client engagement instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Engineer-Client Relationship

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Enter a professional service agreement to inspect the residence for the client

Required Capabilities:
Residential engineering inspection
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • requiresCapability: Residential engineering inspection
  • initiates: Engineer-Client Relationship
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A accepted an engagement from a husband and wife client, for a fee, to inspect a residence they were considering purchasing.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: At the start of the client engagement
  • eventRoleContext content: Consulting Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Enter a professional service agreement to inspect the residence for the client
  • textReferences content: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 2
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/97#",
    "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/97#Action_Inspection_Engagement_Acceptance",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T10:04:27.382276+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A accepted an engagement from a husband and wife client, for a fee, to inspect a residence they were considering purchasing.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Consulting Engineer",
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Engineer-Client Relationship"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Enter a professional service agreement to inspect the residence for the client",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Residential engineering inspection"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "At the start of the client engagement",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 2,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Inspection Engagement Acceptance"
}

Description: Engineer A performed the engineering inspection of the residence and prepared a one-page written report concluding the residence was in generally good condition with several minor items needing attention.

Temporal Marker: During the engagement, before report submission interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Inspection Findings Documented

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Provide the client with a factual assessment of the residence's condition

Obligation Engagement:
Fulfills (1)
  • Duty to Provide Contracted Inspection Services
Guided By Principles:
  • Openness and Straightforward Dealing
Required Capabilities:
Residential engineering inspection Engineering judgment Report writing
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • fulfillsObligation: Duty to Provide Contracted Inspection Services
  • guidedByPrinciple: Openness and Straightforward Dealing
  • requiresCapability: Residential engineering inspection; Engineering judgment; Report writing
  • initiates: Inspection Findings Documented
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A performed the engineering inspection of the residence and prepared a one-page written report concluding the residence was in generally good condition with several minor items needing attention.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: During the engagement, before report submission
  • eventRoleContext content: Consulting Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Provide the client with a factual assessment of the residence's condition
  • textReferences content: prepared a one-page written report, concluding that the residence under consideration was in generally good condition requiring no major repairs, but noting several minor items needing attention
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 3
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/97#",
    "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/97#Action_Inspection_and_Report_Preparation",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T10:04:27.382321+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A performed the engineering inspection of the residence and prepared a one-page written report concluding the residence was in generally good condition with several minor items needing attention.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Consulting Engineer",
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Duty to Provide Contracted Inspection Services"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Openness and Straightforward Dealing"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Inspection Findings Documented"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Provide the client with a factual assessment of the residence\u0027s condition",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Residential engineering inspection",
    "Engineering judgment",
    "Report writing"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During the engagement, before report submission",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 3,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "prepared a one-page written report, concluding that the residence under consideration was in generally good condition requiring no major repairs, but noting several minor items needing attention"
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Inspection and Report Preparation"
}

Description: Engineer A did not recognize the confidential nature of his relationship to the client when deciding to share the report, an omission the board treats as his conduct despite the absence of deliberate wrongdoing.

Temporal Marker: At the time of deciding to send the carbon copy instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Breach of Client Confidentiality

Mental State: acted without thought or consideration of any ulterior motive, negligent as to confidentiality

Intended Outcome: None, the omission was a failure to consider the client's right of confidentiality

Obligation Engagement:
At stake (1)
  • Duty of Confidentiality to Client
Required Capabilities:
Professional judgment on client confidentiality
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • requiresCapability: Professional judgment on client confidentiality
  • initiates: Breach of Client Confidentiality
  • raisesObligation: Duty of Confidentiality to Client
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A did not recognize the confidential nature of his relationship to the client when deciding to share the report, an omission the board treats as his conduct despite the absence of deliberate wrongdoing.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: At the time of deciding to send the carbon copy
  • eventRoleContext content: Consulting Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: acted without thought or consideration of any ulterior motive, negligent as to confidentiality
  • intendedOutcome content: None, the omission was a failure to consider the client's right of confidentiality
  • textReferences content: he was nevertheless incorrect in not recognizing the confidentiality of his relationship to the client
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 4
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/97#",
    "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/97#Action_Failure_to_Recognize_Confidentiality",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T10:04:27.382400+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A did not recognize the confidential nature of his relationship to the client when deciding to share the report, an omission the board treats as his conduct despite the absence of deliberate wrongdoing.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Consulting Engineer",
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "acted without thought or consideration of any ulterior motive, negligent as to confidentiality",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Breach of Client Confidentiality"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "None, the omission was a failure to consider the client\u0027s right of confidentiality",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [
    "Duty of Confidentiality to Client"
  ],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Professional judgment on client confidentiality"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "At the time of deciding to send the carbon copy",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 4,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "he was nevertheless incorrect in not recognizing the confidentiality of his relationship to the client"
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Failure to Recognize Confidentiality"
}

Description: Engineer A sent a carbon copy of the inspection report to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence, without authorization from the client, believing it right that both negotiating parties have the same factual data.

Temporal Marker: At the time of report submission to the client instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Client Bargaining Position Compromised
  • Breach of Client Confidentiality

Mental State: deliberate but without ulterior motive, believing the disclosure was right and proper

Intended Outcome: Make his findings known to all interested parties so both sides negotiated with the same factual data

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Reduction of the client's bargaining position with the owners of the residence
Obligation Engagement:
Violates (1)
  • Duty of Confidentiality to Client
Guided By Principles:
  • Openness and Straightforward Dealing
Required Capabilities:
Professional judgment on client confidentiality
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • violatesObligation: Duty of Confidentiality to Client
  • guidedByPrinciple: Openness and Straightforward Dealing
  • requiresCapability: Professional judgment on client confidentiality
  • initiates: Client Bargaining Position Compromised; Breach of Client Confidentiality
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A sent a carbon copy of the inspection report to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence, without authorization from the client, believing it right that both negotiating parties have the same factual data.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: At the time of report submission to the client
  • eventRoleContext content: Consulting Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate but without ulterior motive, believing the disclosure was right and proper
  • intendedOutcome content: Make his findings known to all interested parties so both sides negotiated with the same factual data
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Reduction of the client's bargaining position with the owners of the residence
  • textReferences content: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.; he, as a matter of course, considered it right and proper to make his findings known to all interested parties in order that the parties handle their negotiations for the property with both sides having the same factual data flowing from his services
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 5
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/97#",
    "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/97#Action_Unauthorized_Report_Disclosure",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T10:04:27.382375+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A sent a carbon copy of the inspection report to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence, without authorization from the client, believing it right that both negotiating parties have the same factual data.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Consulting Engineer",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Reduction of the client\u0027s bargaining position with the owners of the residence"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Openness and Straightforward Dealing"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate but without ulterior motive, believing the disclosure was right and proper",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Client Bargaining Position Compromised",
    "Breach of Client Confidentiality"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Make his findings known to all interested parties so both sides negotiated with the same factual data",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Professional judgment on client confidentiality"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "At the time of report submission to the client",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 5,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.",
    "he, as a matter of course, considered it right and proper to make his findings known to all interested parties in order that the parties handle their negotiations for the property with both sides having the same factual data flowing from his services"
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Duty of Confidentiality to Client"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Unauthorized Report Disclosure"
}

Description: Engineer A submitted the completed one-page written report to the husband and wife client who had commissioned the inspection.

Temporal Marker: Following the inspection instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Client Informed of Findings

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Deliver the contracted inspection findings to the client

Obligation Engagement:
Fulfills (1)
  • Duty to Provide Contracted Inspection Services
Guided By Principles:
  • Openness and Straightforward Dealing
Required Capabilities:
Report writing
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • fulfillsObligation: Duty to Provide Contracted Inspection Services
  • guidedByPrinciple: Openness and Straightforward Dealing
  • requiresCapability: Report writing
  • initiates: Client Informed of Findings
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A submitted the completed one-page written report to the husband and wife client who had commissioned the inspection.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: Following the inspection
  • eventRoleContext content: Consulting Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Deliver the contracted inspection findings to the client
  • textReferences content: Engineer A submitted his report to the client
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 7
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/97#",
    "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/97#Action_Report_Submission_to_Client",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T10:04:27.382350+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A submitted the completed one-page written report to the husband and wife client who had commissioned the inspection.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Consulting Engineer",
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Duty to Provide Contracted Inspection Services"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Openness and Straightforward Dealing"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Client Informed of Findings"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Deliver the contracted inspection findings to the client",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Report writing"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Following the inspection",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 7,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A submitted his report to the client"
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Report Submission to Client"
}

Description: The husband and wife client objected that the carbon copy to the real estate firm prejudiced their bargaining position and complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to non-parties to the agreement.

Temporal Marker: After receiving the report and noting the carbon copy notation instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Ethics Dispute Pending

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Protest the unauthorized disclosure and seek accountability for the prejudice to their bargaining position

Guided By Principles:
  • Client Proprietary Rights
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Client Proprietary Rights
  • initiates: Ethics Dispute Pending
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The husband and wife client objected that the carbon copy to the real estate firm prejudiced their bargaining position and complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to non-parties to the agreement.
  • hasAgent content: Husband and wife
  • temporalMarker content: After receiving the report and noting the carbon copy notation
  • eventRoleContext content: Client
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Protest the unauthorized disclosure and seek accountability for the prejudice to their bargaining position
  • textReferences content: The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence. They also complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 10
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/97#",
    "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/97#Action_Client_Complaint_Filing",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T10:04:27.382424+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "The husband and wife client objected that the carbon copy to the real estate firm prejudiced their bargaining position and complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to non-parties to the agreement.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Client",
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Client Proprietary Rights"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Husband and wife",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Ethics Dispute Pending"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Protest the unauthorized disclosure and seek accountability for the prejudice to their bargaining position",
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After receiving the report and noting the carbon copy notation",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 10,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence. They also complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services."
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Client Complaint Filing"
}
Extracted Events (3)
Occurrences that trigger ethical considerations and state changes

Description: The real estate firm handling the sale, a party with an actual or potential adverse interest that was not a party to the inspection agreement, came into possession of a carbon copy of the inspection report.

Temporal Marker: Simultaneous with report submission to the client instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Adverse Party Possesses Report
  • Client Confidentiality Breached
Terminates (1)
  • Client Exclusive Benefit of Report

Caused By Action: Action_Unauthorized_Report_Disclosure

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/97#Action_Unauthorized_Report_Disclosure
  • initiates: Adverse Party Possesses Report; Client Confidentiality Breached
  • terminates: Client Exclusive Benefit of Report
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The real estate firm handling the sale, a party with an actual or potential adverse interest that was not a party to the inspection agreement, came into possession of a carbon copy of the inspection report.
  • temporalMarker content: Simultaneous with report submission to the client
  • textReferences content: a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence; the engineer voluntarily provides a copy of a report commissioned by a client to a party with an actual or potential adverse interest
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 6
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/97#",
    "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/97#Event_Adverse_Party_Report_Receipt",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T10:04:27.382509+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/97#Action_Unauthorized_Report_Disclosure",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.9",
  "proeth:description": "The real estate firm handling the sale, a party with an actual or potential adverse interest that was not a party to the inspection agreement, came into possession of a carbon copy of the inspection report.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Adverse Party Possesses Report",
    "Client Confidentiality Breached"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Simultaneous with report submission to the client",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 6,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Client Exclusive Benefit of Report"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence",
    "the engineer voluntarily provides a copy of a report commissioned by a client to a party with an actual or potential adverse interest"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Adverse Party Report Receipt"
}

Description: The husband and wife client became aware that a copy of their inspection report had been sent to the real estate firm, because the submitted report itself showed the carbon copy notation.

Temporal Marker: Upon receipt of the submitted report instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Client Aware of Disclosure

Caused By Action: Action_Report_Submission_to_Client

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/97#Action_Report_Submission_to_Client
  • initiates: Client Aware of Disclosure
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The husband and wife client became aware that a copy of their inspection report had been sent to the real estate firm, because the submitted report itself showed the carbon copy notation.
  • temporalMarker content: Upon receipt of the submitted report
  • textReferences content: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 8
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/97#",
    "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/97#Event_Client_Disclosure_Awareness",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T10:04:27.382543+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/97#Action_Report_Submission_to_Client",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.85",
  "proeth:description": "The husband and wife client became aware that a copy of their inspection report had been sent to the real estate firm, because the submitted report itself showed the carbon copy notation.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Client Aware of Disclosure"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Upon receipt of the submitted report",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 8,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Client Disclosure Awareness"
}

Description: The claimed lessening of the client's bargaining position with the owners of the residence, resulting from the sellers' side gaining knowledge of the inspection findings. The case leaves open whether actual economic disadvantage occurred.

Temporal Marker: Following the disclosure of the report to the real estate firm interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Weakened Bargaining Position (alleged)

Caused By Action: Action_Unauthorized_Report_Disclosure

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/97#Action_Unauthorized_Report_Disclosure
  • initiates: Weakened Bargaining Position (alleged)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The claimed lessening of the client's bargaining position with the owners of the residence, resulting from the sellers' side gaining knowledge of the inspection findings. The case leaves open whether actual economic disadvantage occurred.
  • temporalMarker content: Following the disclosure of the report to the real estate firm
  • textReferences content: such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence; Whether or not the client in this case actually suffered an economic disadvantage by the reduction of its bargaining power in negotiating the price of the residence through the owner having knowledge gained from the inspection report
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 9
  • confidence assessment: 0.75
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/97#",
    "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/97#Event_Bargaining_Position_Reduction",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T10:04:27.382567+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/97#Action_Unauthorized_Report_Disclosure",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.75",
  "proeth:description": "The claimed lessening of the client\u0027s bargaining position with the owners of the residence, resulting from the sellers\u0027 side gaining knowledge of the inspection findings. The case leaves open whether actual economic disadvantage occurred.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Weakened Bargaining Position (alleged)"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Following the disclosure of the report to the real estate firm",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 9,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence",
    "Whether or not the client in this case actually suffered an economic disadvantage by the reduction of its bargaining power in negotiating the price of the residence through the owner having knowledge gained from the inspection report"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Bargaining Position Reduction"
}
Causal Chains (6)
NESS test analysis: Necessary Element of Sufficient Set

Causal Language: he, as a matter of course, considered it right and proper to make his findings known to all interested parties in order that the parties handle their negotiations for the property with both sides having the same factual data flowing from his services.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's belief that findings should be shared openly with all interested parties
  • Engineer A's failure to recognize the proprietary rights of the client under Section II.1.c.
  • Existence of a completed inspection report available to be copied
Sufficient Factors:
  • Combination of non-recognition of confidentiality + belief in open dealing + possession of the report was sufficient to produce the unauthorized disclosure decision
Counterfactual Test: Had Engineer A recognized the confidential nature of his relationship to the client, he would not have voluntarily sent the carbon copy to a party with an adverse interest
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Inspection Engagement Acceptance
    Engineer A accepts a fee-based engagement solely from the husband and wife client
  2. Inspection and Report Preparation
    Engineer A performs the inspection and prepares a one-page written report
  3. Failure to Recognize Confidentiality
    Engineer A does not recognize that the client holds exclusive proprietary rights to the report
  4. Unauthorized Report Disclosure
    Engineer A sends a carbon copy of the report to the real estate firm handling the sale
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Failure to Recognize Confidentiality
  • effect: Unauthorized Report Disclosure
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: he, as a matter of course, considered it right and proper to make his findings known to all interested parties in order that the parties handle their negotiations for the property with both sides having the same factual data flowing from his services.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's belief that findings should be shared openly with all interested parties; Engineer A's failure to recognize the proprietary rights of the client under Section II.1.c.; Existence of a completed inspection report available to be copied
  • sufficientFactors content: Combination of non-recognition of confidentiality + belief in open dealing + possession of the report was sufficient to produce the unauthorized disclosure decision
  • counterfactual content: Had Engineer A recognized the confidential nature of his relationship to the client, he would not have voluntarily sent the carbon copy to a party with an adverse interest
  • agentKnowledge content: Acted without ulterior motive; believed it was right and proper to make findings known to all interested parties, but should have known the client had proprietary rights to exclusive benefit of the information
  • interveningFactors content: Common engineering culture of being open and aboveboard (Sections II.3. and II.3.a)
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Inspection Engagement Acceptance', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A accepts a fee-based engagement solely from the husband and wife client'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Inspection and Report Preparation', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A performs the inspection and prepares a one-page written report'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Failure to Recognize Confidentiality', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A does not recognize that the client holds exclusive proprietary rights to the report'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Unauthorized Report Disclosure', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A sends a carbon copy of the report to the real estate firm handling the sale'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/97#",
    "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/97#CausalChain_1",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T10:04:27.382621+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Acted without ulterior motive; believed it was right and proper to make findings known to all interested parties, but should have known the client had proprietary rights to exclusive benefit of the information",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "he, as a matter of course, considered it right and proper to make his findings known to all interested parties in order that the parties handle their negotiations for the property with both sides having the same factual data flowing from his services.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A accepts a fee-based engagement solely from the husband and wife client",
      "proeth:element": "Inspection Engagement Acceptance",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A performs the inspection and prepares a one-page written report",
      "proeth:element": "Inspection and Report Preparation",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A does not recognize that the client holds exclusive proprietary rights to the report",
      "proeth:element": "Failure to Recognize Confidentiality",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A sends a carbon copy of the report to the real estate firm handling the sale",
      "proeth:element": "Unauthorized Report Disclosure",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Failure to Recognize Confidentiality",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer A recognized the confidential nature of his relationship to the client, he would not have voluntarily sent the carbon copy to a party with an adverse interest",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Unauthorized Report Disclosure",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Common engineering culture of being open and aboveboard (Sections II.3. and II.3.a)"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s belief that findings should be shared openly with all interested parties",
    "Engineer A\u0027s failure to recognize the proprietary rights of the client under Section II.1.c.",
    "Existence of a completed inspection report available to be copied"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of non-recognition of confidentiality + belief in open dealing + possession of the report was sufficient to produce the unauthorized disclosure decision"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's decision to send a carbon copy to the real estate firm
  • The real estate firm's role handling the sale, making it a party with an actual or potential adverse interest
Sufficient Factors:
  • The act of transmitting the carbon copy was alone sufficient for the adverse party to receive the report
Counterfactual Test: Without Engineer A sending the carbon copy, the real estate firm would not have received the inspection report
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Inspection and Report Preparation
    Engineer A completes the inspection and one-page report
  2. Unauthorized Report Disclosure
    Engineer A sends a carbon copy of the report to the real estate firm
  3. Adverse Party Report Receipt
    The real estate firm, a party with an actual or potential adverse interest, receives the report
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Unauthorized Report Disclosure
  • effect: Adverse Party Report Receipt
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's decision to send a carbon copy to the real estate firm; The real estate firm's role handling the sale, making it a party with an actual or potential adverse interest
  • sufficientFactors content: The act of transmitting the carbon copy was alone sufficient for the adverse party to receive the report
  • counterfactual content: Without Engineer A sending the carbon copy, the real estate firm would not have received the inspection report
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew the firm was handling the sale of the residence; did not consider that this made it an adverse-interest party relative to his client
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Inspection and Report Preparation', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A completes the inspection and one-page report'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Unauthorized Report Disclosure', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A sends a carbon copy of the report to the real estate firm'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Adverse Party Report Receipt', 'proeth:description': 'The real estate firm, a party with an actual or potential adverse interest, receives the report'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/97#",
    "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/97#CausalChain_2",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T10:04:27.382649+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew the firm was handling the sale of the residence; did not consider that this made it an adverse-interest party relative to his client",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A completes the inspection and one-page report",
      "proeth:element": "Inspection and Report Preparation",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A sends a carbon copy of the report to the real estate firm",
      "proeth:element": "Unauthorized Report Disclosure",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The real estate firm, a party with an actual or potential adverse interest, receives the report",
      "proeth:element": "Adverse Party Report Receipt",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Unauthorized Report Disclosure",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without Engineer A sending the carbon copy, the real estate firm would not have received the inspection report",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Adverse Party Report Receipt",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s decision to send a carbon copy to the real estate firm",
    "The real estate firm\u0027s role handling the sale, making it a party with an actual or potential adverse interest"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The act of transmitting the carbon copy was alone sufficient for the adverse party to receive the report"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Whether or not the client in this case actually suffered an economic disadvantage by the reduction of its bargaining power in negotiating the price of the residence through the owner having knowledge gained from the inspection report, the same principle should apply in any case where the engineer voluntarily provides a copy of a report commissioned by a client to a party with an actual or potential adverse interest.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • The real estate firm/owner's side gaining knowledge from the inspection report
  • Ongoing price negotiations between client and owners
  • The report's favorable conclusion (residence in generally good condition, no major repairs)
Sufficient Factors:
  • Adverse party's possession of the report's factual findings during active negotiations was sufficient to lessen the client's bargaining leverage
Counterfactual Test: Had the adverse party not received the report, the owners' side would have lacked the knowledge that reduced the client's bargaining power; the discussion notes the damage 'if any in fact, was slight' but the principle applies regardless
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Unauthorized Report Disclosure
    Engineer A sends the carbon copy to the real estate firm
  2. Adverse Party Report Receipt
    The firm handling the sale obtains the report's findings
  3. Bargaining Position Reduction
    The owners' side gains knowledge from the report, lessening the client's bargaining position on price
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Adverse Party Report Receipt
  • effect: Bargaining Position Reduction
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Whether or not the client in this case actually suffered an economic disadvantage by the reduction of its bargaining power in negotiating the price of the residence through the owner having knowledge gained from the inspection report, the same principle should apply in any case where the engineer voluntarily provides a copy of a report commissioned by a client to a party with an actual or potential adverse interest.
  • necessaryFactors content: The real estate firm/owner's side gaining knowledge from the inspection report; Ongoing price negotiations between client and owners; The report's favorable conclusion (residence in generally good condition, no major repairs)
  • sufficientFactors content: Adverse party's possession of the report's factual findings during active negotiations was sufficient to lessen the client's bargaining leverage
  • counterfactual content: Had the adverse party not received the report, the owners' side would have lacked the knowledge that reduced the client's bargaining power; the discussion notes the damage 'if any in fact, was slight' but the principle applies regardless
  • agentKnowledge content: Did not consider that sharing findings would prejudice the client's negotiating interests; believed equal information for both sides was proper
  • interveningFactors content: The real estate firm's use of the information in the sale negotiation; Uncertainty whether actual economic disadvantage occurred
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Unauthorized Report Disclosure', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A sends the carbon copy to the real estate firm'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Adverse Party Report Receipt', 'proeth:description': "The firm handling the sale obtains the report's findings"}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Bargaining Position Reduction', 'proeth:description': "The owners' side gains knowledge from the report, lessening the client's bargaining position on price"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: indirect
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/97#",
    "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/97#CausalChain_3",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T10:04:27.382672+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Did not consider that sharing findings would prejudice the client\u0027s negotiating interests; believed equal information for both sides was proper",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Whether or not the client in this case actually suffered an economic disadvantage by the reduction of its bargaining power in negotiating the price of the residence through the owner having knowledge gained from the inspection report, the same principle should apply in any case where the engineer voluntarily provides a copy of a report commissioned by a client to a party with an actual or potential adverse interest.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A sends the carbon copy to the real estate firm",
      "proeth:element": "Unauthorized Report Disclosure",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The firm handling the sale obtains the report\u0027s findings",
      "proeth:element": "Adverse Party Report Receipt",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The owners\u0027 side gains knowledge from the report, lessening the client\u0027s bargaining position on price",
      "proeth:element": "Bargaining Position Reduction",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Adverse Party Report Receipt",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had the adverse party not received the report, the owners\u0027 side would have lacked the knowledge that reduced the client\u0027s bargaining power; the discussion notes the damage \u0027if any in fact, was slight\u0027 but the principle applies regardless",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Bargaining Position Reduction",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "The real estate firm\u0027s use of the information in the sale negotiation",
    "Uncertainty whether actual economic disadvantage occurred"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "The real estate firm/owner\u0027s side gaining knowledge from the inspection report",
    "Ongoing price negotiations between client and owners",
    "The report\u0027s favorable conclusion (residence in generally good condition, no major repairs)"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "indirect",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Adverse party\u0027s possession of the report\u0027s factual findings during active negotiations was sufficient to lessen the client\u0027s bargaining leverage"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • The report submitted to the client displayed the carbon copy notation
  • The client's review of the submitted report
Sufficient Factors:
  • Delivery of the report bearing the visible carbon-copy notation was sufficient for the client to learn of the disclosure
Counterfactual Test: Without the report showing the carbon copy notation, the client would not have become aware (at least at that time) that the real estate firm received a copy
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Unauthorized Report Disclosure
    Engineer A sends the carbon copy to the real estate firm
  2. Report Submission to Client
    Engineer A delivers the report to the client showing the carbon copy notation
  3. Client Disclosure Awareness
    The client learns that a copy of their commissioned report went to the real estate firm
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Report Submission to Client
  • effect: Client Disclosure Awareness
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.
  • necessaryFactors content: The report submitted to the client displayed the carbon copy notation; The client's review of the submitted report
  • sufficientFactors content: Delivery of the report bearing the visible carbon-copy notation was sufficient for the client to learn of the disclosure
  • counterfactual content: Without the report showing the carbon copy notation, the client would not have become aware (at least at that time) that the real estate firm received a copy
  • agentKnowledge content: Openly indicated the carbon copy on the report, consistent with his aboveboard approach and lack of ulterior motive
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Unauthorized Report Disclosure', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A sends the carbon copy to the real estate firm'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Report Submission to Client', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A delivers the report to the client showing the carbon copy notation'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Client Disclosure Awareness', 'proeth:description': 'The client learns that a copy of their commissioned report went to the real estate firm'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/97#",
    "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/97#CausalChain_4",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T10:04:27.382691+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Openly indicated the carbon copy on the report, consistent with his aboveboard approach and lack of ulterior motive",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate firm handling the sale of the residence.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A sends the carbon copy to the real estate firm",
      "proeth:element": "Unauthorized Report Disclosure",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A delivers the report to the client showing the carbon copy notation",
      "proeth:element": "Report Submission to Client",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The client learns that a copy of their commissioned report went to the real estate firm",
      "proeth:element": "Client Disclosure Awareness",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Report Submission to Client",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the report showing the carbon copy notation, the client would not have become aware (at least at that time) that the real estate firm received a copy",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Client Disclosure Awareness",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "The report submitted to the client displayed the carbon copy notation",
    "The client\u0027s review of the submitted report"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Delivery of the report bearing the visible carbon-copy notation was sufficient for the client to learn of the disclosure"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence. They also complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Client's knowledge that the report had been sent to the real estate firm
  • Client's belief that the disclosure prejudiced their bargaining interests
  • Client's understanding that the firm was not a party to the inspection agreement
Sufficient Factors:
  • Awareness of the unauthorized disclosure combined with the perceived prejudice to their negotiating position was sufficient to prompt the objection and ethics complaint
Counterfactual Test: Without becoming aware of the carbon copy, the client would have had no basis or occasion to object or complain
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Husband and wife client (complaint act); Engineer A (underlying grievance)
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Unauthorized Report Disclosure
    Engineer A sends the carbon copy to the real estate firm
  2. Report Submission to Client
    Client receives the report showing the carbon copy notation
  3. Client Disclosure Awareness
    Client discovers their report was shared with the adverse party
  4. Client Complaint Filing
    Client objects to prejudiced interests and complains that Engineer A acted unethically
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Client Disclosure Awareness
  • effect: Client Complaint Filing
  • responsibleAgent: Husband and wife client (complaint act); Engineer A (underlying grievance)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence. They also complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services.
  • necessaryFactors content: Client's knowledge that the report had been sent to the real estate firm; Client's belief that the disclosure prejudiced their bargaining interests; Client's understanding that the firm was not a party to the inspection agreement
  • sufficientFactors content: Awareness of the unauthorized disclosure combined with the perceived prejudice to their negotiating position was sufficient to prompt the objection and ethics complaint
  • counterfactual content: Without becoming aware of the carbon copy, the client would have had no basis or occasion to object or complain
  • agentKnowledge content: Client knew the report was commissioned exclusively by them and that the real estate firm had adverse interests in the transaction
  • interveningFactors content: Client's perception of economic harm to their bargaining position
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Unauthorized Report Disclosure', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A sends the carbon copy to the real estate firm'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Report Submission to Client', 'proeth:description': 'Client receives the report showing the carbon copy notation'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Client Disclosure Awareness', 'proeth:description': 'Client discovers their report was shared with the adverse party'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Client Complaint Filing', 'proeth:description': 'Client objects to prejudiced interests and complains that Engineer A acted unethically'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/97#",
    "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/97#CausalChain_5",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T10:04:27.382710+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Client knew the report was commissioned exclusively by them and that the real estate firm had adverse interests in the transaction",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining position with the owners of the residence. They also complained that Engineer A acted unethically in submitting a copy of the report to any others who had not been a party to the agreement for the inspection services.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A sends the carbon copy to the real estate firm",
      "proeth:element": "Unauthorized Report Disclosure",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Client receives the report showing the carbon copy notation",
      "proeth:element": "Report Submission to Client",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Client discovers their report was shared with the adverse party",
      "proeth:element": "Client Disclosure Awareness",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Client objects to prejudiced interests and complains that Engineer A acted unethically",
      "proeth:element": "Client Complaint Filing",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Client Disclosure Awareness",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without becoming aware of the carbon copy, the client would have had no basis or occasion to object or complain",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Client Complaint Filing",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Client\u0027s perception of economic harm to their bargaining position"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Client\u0027s knowledge that the report had been sent to the real estate firm",
    "Client\u0027s belief that the disclosure prejudiced their bargaining interests",
    "Client\u0027s understanding that the firm was not a party to the inspection agreement"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Husband and wife client (complaint act); Engineer A (underlying grievance)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Awareness of the unauthorized disclosure combined with the perceived prejudice to their negotiating position was sufficient to prompt the objection and ethics complaint"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee and prepared a one-page written report, concluding that the residence under consideration was in generally good condition requiring no major repairs, but noting several minor items needing attention.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engagement agreement between Engineer A and the client
  • Payment of a fee for the inspection service
  • Engineer A's offering of the homeowner inspection service
Sufficient Factors:
  • Acceptance of the fee-based engagement, together with the pre-existing service offering, was sufficient to bring about the inspection and report
Counterfactual Test: Without the engagement, no inspection would have occurred and no report would have existed to be disclosed
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Inspection Service Offering
    Engineer A offers a homeowner inspection service to prospective purchasers
  2. Inspection Engagement Acceptance
    Engineer A accepts the husband and wife's engagement for a fee
  3. Inspection and Report Preparation
    Engineer A inspects the residence and prepares the one-page report
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Inspection Engagement Acceptance
  • effect: Inspection and Report Preparation
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee and prepared a one-page written report, concluding that the residence under consideration was in generally good condition requiring no major repairs, but noting several minor items needing attention.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engagement agreement between Engineer A and the client; Payment of a fee for the inspection service; Engineer A's offering of the homeowner inspection service
  • sufficientFactors content: Acceptance of the fee-based engagement, together with the pre-existing service offering, was sufficient to bring about the inspection and report
  • counterfactual content: Without the engagement, no inspection would have occurred and no report would have existed to be disclosed
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew the service was performed for and paid by the client alone, establishing the client as the sole party to the agreement
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Inspection Service Offering', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A offers a homeowner inspection service to prospective purchasers'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Inspection Engagement Acceptance', 'proeth:description': "Engineer A accepts the husband and wife's engagement for a fee"}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Inspection and Report Preparation', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A inspects the residence and prepares the one-page report'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/97#",
    "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/97#CausalChain_6",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T10:04:27.382727+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew the service was performed for and paid by the client alone, establishing the client as the sole party to the agreement",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee and prepared a one-page written report, concluding that the residence under consideration was in generally good condition requiring no major repairs, but noting several minor items needing attention.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A offers a homeowner inspection service to prospective purchasers",
      "proeth:element": "Inspection Service Offering",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A accepts the husband and wife\u0027s engagement for a fee",
      "proeth:element": "Inspection Engagement Acceptance",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A inspects the residence and prepares the one-page report",
      "proeth:element": "Inspection and Report Preparation",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Inspection Engagement Acceptance",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the engagement, no inspection would have occurred and no report would have existed to be disclosed",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Inspection and Report Preparation",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engagement agreement between Engineer A and the client",
    "Payment of a fee for the inspection service",
    "Engineer A\u0027s offering of the homeowner inspection service"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Acceptance of the fee-based engagement, together with the pre-existing service offering, was sufficient to bring about the inspection and report"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}
Allen Temporal Relations (7)
Interval algebra relationships with OWL-Time standard properties
From Entity Allen Relation To Entity OWL-Time Property Evidence
client engagement of Engineer A (agreement for inspection services for a fee) before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		engineering inspection of the residence time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer A performed this service for a client (husband and wife) for a fee
engineering inspection of the residence before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		preparation of the one-page written report time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Following the inspection, Engineer A renders a written report to the prospective purchaser.
preparation of the written report before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		submission of the report to the client time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		prepared a one-page written report... Engineer A submitted his report to the client
submission of report to the client equals
Entity1 and Entity2 have the same start and end times 		sending of carbon copy to the real estate firm time:intervalEquals
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalEquals 		Engineer A submitted his report to the client showing that a carbon copy was sent to the real estate... [more]
sending of carbon copy to the real estate firm before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		client's objection and complaint of unethical conduct time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		The client objected that such action prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargaining positi... [more]
clients' consideration of purchasing the residence (negotiation period) overlaps
Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2 		inspection and report events time:intervalOverlaps
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalOverlaps 		a residence they were considering purchasing... prejudiced their interests by lessening their bargai... [more]
all case events (inspection, report, disclosure, objection) before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Board's retrospective Discussion and ethical analysis time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		The Discussion section then retrospectively analyzes these events against the Code of Ethics, conclu... [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