Step 4: Full View

The Truthfulness Obligation and Post-Submission Error Correction and Disclosure Obligation require Engineer A to immediately advise Attorney X of the discovered inaccuracy, because allowing a known material misrepresentation to persist constitutes a continuing professional violation. The Faithful Agent Obligation toward Attorney X creates a competing pull toward deference to the attorney's litigation strategy and timing preferences, particularly given that disclosure may materially weaken Attorney X's settlement position. The Forensic Expert Immediate Error Correction Disclosure Obligation establishes that the attorney requires accurate information to make informed settlement decisions, and that the faithful agent duty is properly fulfilled, not violated, by disclosure. The Adversarial Settlement Context Non-Deferral Constraint forecloses treating the active negotiation posture as a basis for delay.

The Faithful Agent Boundary in Error Correction Obligation establishes that the faithful agent duty owed to Attorney X does not extend to suppressing, delaying, or withholding correction of a discovered material data inaccuracy, the boundary of the faithful agent role is defined by the Code's truthfulness and non-deception provisions, which are not waivable by client instruction. The Adversarial Context Non-Exemption principle forecloses Engineer A from becoming an instrument of misrepresentation by complying with the suppression instruction. The Public Welfare Paramount principle and the Non-Deception Constraint together require Engineer A to refuse the instruction and, if Attorney X persists, to consider withdrawal and escalation of disclosure beyond the attorney-client channel. The Honesty and Integrity Obligation of Forensic Engineering Experts establishes that compliance with a suppression instruction would transform Engineer A from an objective expert into an advocate, violating the forensic expert non-advocate status principle.

The Forensic Expert Immediate Error Correction Disclosure Obligation establishes that post-submission discovery imposes an affirmative external disclosure duty, not merely an internal correction, because the inaccurate report has already entered an active legal proceeding and is being relied upon. The temporal urgency constraint functions as a substantive ethical amplifier: the pre-settlement window is the last moment at which Engineer A's professional action can prevent, rather than merely remediate, the harm caused by the inaccurate report. The Forensic Testing Methodological Consistency and Equipment Failure Disclosure Obligation and the Forensic Expert Available Evidence Consultation Before Adverse Opinion Obligation together establish that the intellectual honesty and objectivity obligations apply prospectively to the conduct of the investigation, meaning that if the data inaccuracy arose from methodological deficiency, Engineer A may have violated the Code at the moment of original submission, independently of the post-discovery disclosure obligation. The Post-Submission Error Correction and Disclosure Obligation confirms that the engineer's duty of truthfulness is not discharged by submission but continues for as long as the report remains operative.

The Faithful Agent Obligation toward Attorney X creates a prima facie duty to follow client instructions within the scope of the engagement. The Error Acknowledgment and Corrective Disclosure Obligation and the Non-Deception Constraint are not waivable by client instruction. The Adversarial Context Non-Exemption principle prohibits Engineer A from becoming an instrument of misrepresentation. The Public Welfare Paramount principle and the Honesty in Professional Representations principle together escalate Engineer A's obligations beyond the attorney-client channel when Attorney X refuses to act on the corrected information. The Forensic Expert Non-Advocate Status principle establishes that Engineer A's role is defined by objectivity and technical integrity, not by advocacy for the retaining party's litigation position.

The Report Completeness obligation requires that forensic reports include all material data within the scope of the investigation, including data that may be unfavorable to the retaining party's position. The Methodological Fidelity obligation requires that comparative testing and data selection be governed by professional standards rather than by the adversarial interests of the retaining party. The Adversarial Context Non-Exemption principle holds that the adversarial structure of litigation does not authorize selective omission of material evidence. The Honesty in Professional Representations principle prohibits statements, including reports, that contain material omissions. The Intellectual Honesty Obligation requires Engineer B to hold the accuracy and completeness of the technical record as a value superseding litigation convenience.