Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 86-2 (1986) · Signing and Sealing Plans Not Prepared by Engineer
Professional obligations conflict, and the board applies no fixed rule for which one wins.
Each resolution is recorded as three edges:
competesWith (the tension),
prevailsOver (the obligation the board allowed to win in this case), and
defeasibleUnder (the situation under which the yielding obligation gives way).
The same tension is then traced across comparable cases, where its resolution shifts with context.
Hover any obligation or state to see its definition; click to open it in OntServe.
How this case resolved it
Featured
Engineer A Responsible Charge Detailed Review Before Sealing Violation
prevails over
Engineer A Subordinate Competence Confidence Non-Substitution Violation
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Competence-Trust Substitution for Verification
Engineer A Responsible Charge Active Review Obligation Violation
prevails over
Engineer A General Direction Non-Equivalence to Responsible Charge Violation
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A General Supervision Without Detailed Design Review
Engineer A Responsible Charge Detailed Review Before Sealing Violation
prevails over
Engineer A Subordinate Competence Confidence Non-Substitution Sealing Review
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Competence-Trust Substitution for Verification
Engineer A Seal Affixation Professional Judgment Certification Failure
prevails over
Engineer A Chief Engineer Minimum Engagement Responsible Charge Sealing
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A General Supervision Without Detailed Design Review
- Engineer A Insufficient Responsible Charge
Engineer A Detailed Review Sufficiency Standard Violation
prevails over
Engineer A Organizational Scale Non-Excuse Violation
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Organizational Scale Preventing Adequate Review
Engineer A Professional Accountability Acceptance for Directed Work
prevails over
Engineer A Organizational Scale Non-Excuse Violation
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Organizational Scale Preventing Adequate Review
Engineer A Detailed Review Sufficiency Standard Violation
prevails over
Engineer A Organizational Scale Non-Excuse Responsible Charge Sealing
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Organizational Scale Preventing Adequate Review
Engineer A Responsible Charge Direct Control Non-Registered Subordinate Sealing
prevails over
Engineer A Chief Engineer Minimum Engagement Responsible Charge Sealing
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A General Supervision Without Detailed Design Review
- Engineer A Insufficient Responsible Charge
Engineer A Professional Accountability Acceptance for Directed Work
prevails over
Engineer A Organizational Scale Non-Excuse Responsible Charge Sealing
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Organizational Scale Preventing Adequate Review
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Engineer A Case 85-3 Analogy Oversight Role Competence Prerequisite vs Engineer A Chief Engineer Minimum Engagement Responsible Charge Sealing
Engineer A Chief Engineer Minimum Engagement Responsible Charge Sealing vs Engineer A Detailed Review Sufficiency Standard Violation
Engineer A Chief Engineer Minimum Engagement Responsible Charge Sealing vs Engineer A Responsible Charge Direction Control Definition Application
Engineer A Chief Engineer Minimum Engagement Responsible Charge Sealing vs Engineer A Subordinate Competence Confidence Non-Substitution Sealing Review
Engineer A Chief Engineer Minimum Engagement Responsible Charge Sealing vs Engineer A Subordinate Competence Confidence Non-Substitution Violation
Engineer A Chief Engineer Minimum Engagement Responsible Charge Sealing vs Engineer A Technical Segment Sealing Without Qualified Preparer Attribution
Engineer A General Direction Non-Equivalence to Responsible Charge Violation vs Engineer A Responsible Charge Detailed Review Before Sealing Violation
Engineer A Organizational Scale Non-Excuse Responsible Charge Sealing vs Engineer A Responsible Charge Active Review Obligation Violation
What the board concluded
- It is unethical for Engineer A to seal plans that have not been prepared by him, or which he has not checked and reviewed in detail.
How comparable cases resolved the same tension
Engineer A Subordinate Competence Confidence Non-Substitution Violation yields to Engineer A Responsible Charge Detailed Review Before Sealing Violation. The yielding obligation ("Engineer A Subordinate Competence Confidence Non-Substitution Violation") recurs across cases; the obligation that overrides it and the context under which it yields differ case by case. This is the case-law move: not a single rule, but a family of context-indexed resolutions.
| Case | Obligation that prevailed | Yielding obligation | Context (defeasibleUnder) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
22-7
Impaired Engineering
|
Engineer Intern C Non-Aiding Unlawful Practice Violation Instance | Engineer Intern C Subordinate Complicity Prohibition Violation Instance | Engineer Intern C Unlicensed Responsible Charge Delegation |
|
22-4
Duty to Report Misconduct
|
Engineer A Proportionate Characterization State Q Proposal Analysis | Competitor Qualification Proposal Misconduct Reporting Obligation Engineer A State Q | Engineer A Multi-Jurisdiction Rule Stringency Differential; Engineer B State Q Attribution Ambiguity |
|
98-8
Competence To Certify Arms Storage Rooms
|
Engineer A BER 94-8 Peer Competency Challenge and Escalation Instance | Engineer B BER 94-8 Structural Footing Out-of-Competence Refusal Instance | BER 94-8 Precedent — Engineer B Structural Footing Competence Gap |
|
72-11
Statements in Employee Resume
|
Doe Selective Emphasis Competence Deception Boundary Managerial Resume Aerospace | Doe Selective Emphasis Competence-Deception Boundary Violation | Doe Exaggeration-Emphasis Threshold Determination |
|
98-5
Public Health And Safety - Code Enforcement
|
BER 88-6 City Engineer External Authority Identification After Internal Failure | BER 88-6 City Engineer Supervisory Inaction Complicity Avoidance | BER 88-6 City Engineer Superior Authority Suppression |