Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 23-4 (2023) · Acknowledging Errors in Design
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 T Missed Opportunity Acknowledgment Post-Accident
prevails over
Error Acknowledgment Obligation Engineer T Post-Accident Assessment
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer T Contested Error Characterization
- Engineer T Deposition Transparency Obligation
- Engineer T Ethical Dilemma Error Acknowledgment vs Legal Counsel Direction
- Engineer T Missed Opportunity Without Ethical Violation
- Engineer T Superior Authority Dismissal of Error Concern
Supervisory Error Characterization Authority Obligation Engineer B XYZ
prevails over
Internal Error Concern Escalation Obligation Engineer T Self-Assessment
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
No State context committed for this edge.
Competence Boundary Awareness Obligation Engineer T Construction Safety Domain
prevails over
Responsible Charge Design Safety Obligation Engineer T Structural Modifications
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer T Construction Safety Domain Incompetence
- Engineer T Contractually Transferred Safety Responsibility
- Engineer T Unexplored Alternative Design
Engineer B Supervisory Error Characterization Determination for Engineer T Design
prevails over
Error Acknowledgment Obligation Engineer T Post-Accident Assessment
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer T Contested Error Characterization
- Engineer T Deposition Transparency Obligation
- Engineer T Ethical Dilemma Error Acknowledgment vs Legal Counsel Direction
- Engineer T Missed Opportunity Without Ethical Violation
- Engineer T Superior Authority Dismissal of Error Concern
Engineer T Standard of Care Compliance Ethical Sufficiency Determination
prevails over
Engineer T Proactive Design Alternatives Presentation Pre-Design Selection
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer T Missed Opportunity Without Ethical Violation
Engineer T Standard of Care Compliance Ethical Sufficiency Determination
prevails over
Construction Safety Consideration Obligation Engineer T Design Selection
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer T Construction Safety Domain Incompetence
- Engineer T Contractually Transferred Safety Responsibility
Deposition Factual Completeness Obligation Engineer T Legal Proceedings
prevails over
Error Acknowledgment Obligation Engineer T Post-Accident Assessment
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer T Contested Error Characterization
- Engineer T Deposition Transparency Obligation
- Engineer T Ethical Dilemma Error Acknowledgment vs Legal Counsel Direction
- Engineer T Missed Opportunity Without Ethical Violation
- Engineer T Superior Authority Dismissal of Error Concern
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Deposition Factual Completeness Obligation Engineer T Legal Proceedings vs Engineer T Post-Accident Honest Characterization in Deposition and Statements
Engineer T Constructability Safety Review Solicitation Pre-Construction vs Engineer T Standard of Care Compliance Ethical Sufficiency Determination
Engineer T Standard of Care Compliance Ethical Sufficiency Determination vs Responsible Charge Design Safety Obligation Engineer T Structural Modifications
Error Acknowledgment Obligation Engineer T Post-Accident Assessment vs Objective Reporting Obligation Engineer T Deposition Full History Disclosure
What the board concluded
- It was ethical for Engineer T and Engineer B to conclude no error had been made in design, based on review and analysis of the facts from both from a legal/contractual perspective and from an ethical perspective.
- It was ethical for Engineer T not to acknowledge an error after the accident occurred because there was no error.
- It was ethical for Engineer T to refrain from acknowledging an error during the deposition because there was no error.
How comparable cases resolved the same tension
Error Acknowledgment Obligation Engineer T Post-Accident Assessment yields to Engineer T Missed Opportunity Acknowledgment Post-Accident. The yielding obligation ("Error Acknowledgment Obligation Engineer T Post-Accident Assessment") 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) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
22-3
Review of Other Engineer’s Work
|
Engineer C Competitor Critique Declination Obligation Instance | Engineer C Truthfulness Insufficiency Recognition Obligation Instance | Engineer C Incomplete Circumstantial Knowledge of Engineer B's Work |
|
22-8
Independence of Peer Reviewer
|
Engineer A Safety Review Consent | Engineer A Error Acknowledgment Cooperation | -- |
|
97-11
Duty To Disclose Disciplinary Complaint To Client
|
Engineer Z Non-Key-Employee Departed Engineer Brochure Listing Case 90-4 | Engineer Z Firm Brochure Post-Departure Personnel Listing Correction Obligation Case 90-4 | Engineer Z Post-Notice Brochure Distribution (Case 90-4) |
|
17-3
Public Health, Safety and...
|
Ethics Code Higher Standard Non-Reliance Engineer A Insurance Report Current Case | Prior Safety Report Sufficiency Self-Assessment Engineer A Current Case State Board Finding | Regulatory Adequacy Determination — Present Case; Regulatory Minimum vs. NSPE Ethical Threshold — Present Case |
|
22-1
Unlicensed Practice by Nonengineers with...
|
BER Case 92-2 EI Timely Misrepresentation Correction Escalation Obligation Instance | BER Case 92-2 EI Engineer Intern Misrepresentation Correction Obligation Instance | Engineer Intern Credential Misrepresentation in Firm Advertising |