This page shows the pre-commit working store (the raw extraction under review). This case was committed to OntServe on 2026-07-14 15:31; 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 130: Job Qualifications—Disclosure of Material Fact

27 entities 6 actions 4 events 6 causal chains 10 temporal relations
Timeline Overview
Action Event 10 sequenced markers
Job Application Submission Prior to relocation, before the interview
Exam Result Disclosure A month after starting work, when exam results were released
Exam Results Release A month after Engineer Intern A started work
Third Exam Failure Revealed when results were released, a month after starting work
Nondisclosure of Exam Failures At the interview
Employment Offer After the interview
Ethical Review Ruling Retrospectively, during case review
Prior Exam Failures Prior to the job application and interview
Reexamination Restriction Triggered Following the third exam failure
OWL-Time Temporal Structure 10 relations time: = w3.org/2006/time
planned relocation to State X time:intervalBefore availability for work
two prior failed PE exam attempts time:intervalBefore interview with XYZ Consultants
interview and disclosure of unlicensed status time:intervalBefore employment offer by XYZ Consultants
employment offer time:intervalBefore start of work at XYZ Consultants
third PE exam attempt time:intervalBefore release of PE exam results
release of PE exam results time:intervalDuring Engineer Intern A's employment at XYZ Consultants
disclosure of third failure to supervisor time:intervalAfter release of PE exam results
obtaining PE licensure time:intervalDuring 90-day period after date of hire
acquiring additional experience and new references time:intervalBefore sitting for the PE exam again (fourth attempt)
third exam failure time:intervalBefore acquiring additional experience and new references
Extracted Actions (6)
Volitional professional decisions with intentions and ethical context

Description: Engineer Intern A, planning to relocate to State X, applied for a position advertised by XYZ Consultants that required a PE license in State X or achievement of licensure within 90 days of hire.

Temporal Marker: Prior to relocation, before the interview instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Candidacy for XYZ Consultants Position

Mental State: deliberate and confident

Intended Outcome: Secure employment in State X on a planned path to PE licensure

Required Capabilities:
Engineering education and experience meeting job qualifications
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • requiresCapability: Engineering education and experience meeting job qualifications
  • initiates: Candidacy for XYZ Consultants Position
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer Intern A, planning to relocate to State X, applied for a position advertised by XYZ Consultants that required a PE license in State X or achievement of licensure within 90 days of hire.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer Intern A
  • temporalMarker content: Prior to relocation, before the interview
  • eventRoleContext content: Engineer Intern
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate and confident
  • intendedOutcome content: Secure employment in State X on a planned path to PE licensure
  • textReferences content: Engineer Intern A, an Engineer Intern in State Y with a BS in engineering, an MS in management, and five years of experience, was planning on relocating to State X and applied for a position advertised by XYZ Consultants.
  • 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/130#",
    "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/130#Action_Job_Application_Submission",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T15:16:52.958885+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A, planning to relocate to State X, applied for a position advertised by XYZ Consultants that required a PE license in State X or achievement of licensure within 90 days of hire.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Engineer Intern",
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer Intern A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate and confident",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Candidacy for XYZ Consultants Position"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Secure employment in State X on a planned path to PE licensure",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Engineering education and experience meeting job qualifications"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Prior to relocation, before the interview",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 2,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer Intern A, an Engineer Intern in State Y with a BS in engineering, an MS in management, and five years of experience, was planning on relocating to State X and applied for a position advertised by XYZ Consultants."
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Job Application Submission"
}

Description: At the interview, Engineer Intern A explained he was not a licensed PE in State Y, indicated his intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks, and explained his relocation timeline and availability.

Temporal Marker: At the interview instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Employer Awareness of Unlicensed Status

Mental State: forthcoming about current status, confident about passing

Intended Outcome: Inform XYZ Consultants of his unlicensed status and his plan to satisfy the licensure requirement

Obligation Engagement:
Fulfills (1)
  • Obligation to be objective and truthful in professional statements
Guided By Principles:
  • Objectivity and Truthfulness
Required Capabilities:
Honest professional communication
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • fulfillsObligation: Obligation to be objective and truthful in professional statements
  • guidedByPrinciple: Objectivity and Truthfulness
  • requiresCapability: Honest professional communication
  • initiates: Employer Awareness of Unlicensed Status
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: At the interview, Engineer Intern A explained he was not a licensed PE in State Y, indicated his intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks, and explained his relocation timeline and availability.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer Intern A
  • temporalMarker content: At the interview
  • eventRoleContext content: Engineer Intern
  • hasMentalState content: forthcoming about current status, confident about passing
  • intendedOutcome content: Inform XYZ Consultants of his unlicensed status and his plan to satisfy the licensure requirement
  • textReferences content: At his interview, Engineer Intern A explains he is not a licensed PE in State Y but indicates an intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks.; He also explains that he will be relocating to State X in several months and will be available for work.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 3
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/130#",
    "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/130#Action_Licensure_Status_Disclosure",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T15:16:52.959370+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "At the interview, Engineer Intern A explained he was not a licensed PE in State Y, indicated his intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks, and explained his relocation timeline and availability.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Engineer Intern",
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Obligation to be objective and truthful in professional statements"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Objectivity and Truthfulness"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer Intern A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "forthcoming about current status, confident about passing",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Employer Awareness of Unlicensed Status"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Inform XYZ Consultants of his unlicensed status and his plan to satisfy the licensure requirement",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Honest professional communication"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "At the interview",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 3,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "At his interview, Engineer Intern A explains he is not a licensed PE in State Y but indicates an intention to take the PE exam in the coming weeks.",
    "He also explains that he will be relocating to State X in several months and will be available for work."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Licensure Status Disclosure"
}

Description: Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his two previous unsuccessful attempts to pass the PE exam, an omission the Board analyzes as prudentially significant but not ethically required to disclose.

Temporal Marker: At the interview instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Undisclosed Prior Exam Failures

Mental State: confident that passage on the third attempt was imminent, exercising privacy

Intended Outcome: Preserve his candidacy and privacy while pursuing a planned path toward licensure

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Employer expectation formed without knowledge of prior failures
  • Weakened professional position with the firm if the third attempt failed
Guided By Principles:
  • Right to Privacy
Required Capabilities:
Judgment about disclosure of personal professional history
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Right to Privacy
  • requiresCapability: Judgment about disclosure of personal professional history
  • initiates: Undisclosed Prior Exam Failures
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his two previous unsuccessful attempts to pass the PE exam, an omission the Board analyzes as prudentially significant but not ethically required to disclose.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer Intern A
  • temporalMarker content: At the interview
  • eventRoleContext content: Engineer Intern
  • hasMentalState content: confident that passage on the third attempt was imminent, exercising privacy
  • intendedOutcome content: Preserve his candidacy and privacy while pursuing a planned path toward licensure
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Employer expectation formed without knowledge of prior failures; Weakened professional position with the firm if the third attempt failed
  • textReferences content: Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam, and XYZ Consultants did not ask.; he stopped short of pointing out that he had failed the PE exam twice before
  • 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/130#",
    "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/130#Action_Nondisclosure_of_Exam_Failures",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T15:16:52.959441+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his two previous unsuccessful attempts to pass the PE exam, an omission the Board analyzes as prudentially significant but not ethically required to disclose.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Engineer Intern",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Employer expectation formed without knowledge of prior failures",
    "Weakened professional position with the firm if the third attempt failed"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Right to Privacy"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer Intern A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "confident that passage on the third attempt was imminent, exercising privacy",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Undisclosed Prior Exam Failures"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Preserve his candidacy and privacy while pursuing a planned path toward licensure",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Judgment about disclosure of personal professional history"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "At the interview",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 4,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam, and XYZ Consultants did not ask.",
    "he stopped short of pointing out that he had failed the PE exam twice before"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Nondisclosure of Exam Failures"
}

Description: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A knowing he had not yet passed the PE exam, with the expectation that he was on track to obtain a PE license within 90 days of hire.

Temporal Marker: After the interview instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Employment Relationship
  • Employer Expectation of Imminent Licensure
Terminates (1)
  • Candidacy for XYZ Consultants Position

Mental State: deliberate hiring decision based on stated qualifications

Intended Outcome: Fill the advertised position with a candidate expected to achieve PE licensure within 90 days of hire

Required Capabilities:
Candidate evaluation and hiring judgment
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • requiresCapability: Candidate evaluation and hiring judgment
  • initiates: Employment Relationship; Employer Expectation of Imminent Licensure
  • terminates: Candidacy for XYZ Consultants Position
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A knowing he had not yet passed the PE exam, with the expectation that he was on track to obtain a PE license within 90 days of hire.
  • hasAgent content: XYZ Consultants
  • temporalMarker content: After the interview
  • eventRoleContext content: Employer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate hiring decision based on stated qualifications
  • intendedOutcome content: Fill the advertised position with a candidate expected to achieve PE licensure within 90 days of hire
  • textReferences content: XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A with the expectation that Engineer Intern A was on the track to obtain a PE license.; XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A knowing he had not yet passed the PE exam.
  • 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/130#",
    "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/130#Action_Employment_Offer",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T15:16:52.959475+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A knowing he had not yet passed the PE exam, with the expectation that he was on track to obtain a PE license within 90 days of hire.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Employer",
  "proeth:hasAgent": "XYZ Consultants",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate hiring decision based on stated qualifications",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Employment Relationship",
    "Employer Expectation of Imminent Licensure"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Fill the advertised position with a candidate expected to achieve PE licensure within 90 days of hire",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Candidate evaluation and hiring judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After the interview",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 5,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Candidacy for XYZ Consultants Position"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A with the expectation that Engineer Intern A was on the track to obtain a PE license.",
    "XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A knowing he had not yet passed the PE exam."
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Employment Offer"
}

Description: A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A informed his supervisor that his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful and explained the State X board's requirement of additional experience and new references before sitting again.

Temporal Marker: A month after starting work, when exam results were released instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Employer Awareness of Third Exam Failure
  • Shaky Employment Position
Terminates (2)
  • Employer Expectation of Imminent Licensure
  • Undisclosed Prior Exam Failures

Mental State: forthcoming despite adverse consequences

Intended Outcome: Truthfully inform his supervisor of the failed third attempt and the board's additional requirements

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Placing his employment at risk given the 90 day licensure requirement
Obligation Engagement:
Fulfills (2)
  • Obligation to be objective and truthful in professional statements
  • Obligation to avoid omitting a material fact
Guided By Principles:
  • Objectivity and Truthfulness
Required Capabilities:
Honest professional communication
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • fulfillsObligation: Obligation to be objective and truthful in professional statements; Obligation to avoid omitting a material fact
  • guidedByPrinciple: Objectivity and Truthfulness
  • requiresCapability: Honest professional communication
  • initiates: Employer Awareness of Third Exam Failure; Shaky Employment Position
  • terminates: Employer Expectation of Imminent Licensure; Undisclosed Prior Exam Failures
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A informed his supervisor that his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful and explained the State X board's requirement of additional experience and new references before sitting again.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer Intern A
  • temporalMarker content: A month after starting work, when exam results were released
  • eventRoleContext content: Engineer Intern, employee of XYZ Consultants
  • hasMentalState content: forthcoming despite adverse consequences
  • intendedOutcome content: Truthfully inform his supervisor of the failed third attempt and the board's additional requirements
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Placing his employment at risk given the 90 day licensure requirement
  • textReferences content: A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A indicated to hissupervisor that the PE exam results had been released and that histhird attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful.; Engineer Intern A also explained that the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 8
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/130#",
    "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/130#Action_Exam_Result_Disclosure",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T15:16:52.959502+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A informed his supervisor that his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful and explained the State X board\u0027s requirement of additional experience and new references before sitting again.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Engineer Intern, employee of XYZ Consultants",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Placing his employment at risk given the 90 day licensure requirement"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Obligation to be objective and truthful in professional statements",
    "Obligation to avoid omitting a material fact"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Objectivity and Truthfulness"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer Intern A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "forthcoming despite adverse consequences",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Employer Awareness of Third Exam Failure",
    "Shaky Employment Position"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Truthfully inform his supervisor of the failed third attempt and the board\u0027s additional requirements",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Honest professional communication"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "A month after starting work, when exam results were released",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 8,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Employer Expectation of Imminent Licensure",
    "Undisclosed Prior Exam Failures"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A indicated to hissupervisor that the PE exam results had been released and that histhird attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful.",
    "Engineer Intern A also explained that the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Exam Result Disclosure"
}

Description: The Board of Ethical Review determined that the facts tip toward Case 97-11, concluding that disclosure of the past exam failures would have been prudent but was arguably not ethically required.

Temporal Marker: Retrospectively, during case review instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Board Determination That Disclosure Was Prudent But Not Required

Mental State: deliberative

Intended Outcome: Resolve whether Engineer Intern A's nondisclosure constituted omitting a material fact and provide ethical guidance

Guided By Principles:
  • Objectivity and Truthfulness
  • Right to Privacy
Required Capabilities:
Ethical analysis of professional conduct
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Objectivity and Truthfulness; Right to Privacy
  • requiresCapability: Ethical analysis of professional conduct
  • initiates: Board Determination That Disclosure Was Prudent But Not Required
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The Board of Ethical Review determined that the facts tip toward Case 97-11, concluding that disclosure of the past exam failures would have been prudent but was arguably not ethically required.
  • hasAgent content: Board of Ethical Review
  • temporalMarker content: Retrospectively, during case review
  • hasMentalState content: deliberative
  • intendedOutcome content: Resolve whether Engineer Intern A's nondisclosure constituted omitting a material fact and provide ethical guidance
  • textReferences content: The Board is of the view that the facts of this case are finely nuanced, but tip toward the situation identified in Case 97-11 . That is, it would have been prudent for Engineer Intern A to have been forthcoming about the past exam failures, but in this case, disclosure arguably was not ethically required.
  • 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/130#",
    "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/130#Action_Ethical_Review_Ruling",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T15:16:52.959584+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "The Board of Ethical Review determined that the facts tip toward Case 97-11, concluding that disclosure of the past exam failures would have been prudent but was arguably not ethically required.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Objectivity and Truthfulness",
    "Right to Privacy"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Board of Ethical Review",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberative",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Board Determination That Disclosure Was Prudent But Not Required"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Resolve whether Engineer Intern A\u0027s nondisclosure constituted omitting a material fact and provide ethical guidance",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Ethical analysis of professional conduct"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Retrospectively, during case review",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 10,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "The Board is of the view that the facts of this case are finely nuanced, but tip toward the situation identified in Case 97-11 . That is, it would have been prudent for Engineer Intern A to have been forthcoming about the past exam failures, but in this case, disclosure arguably was not ethically required."
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Ethical Review Ruling"
}
Extracted Events (4)
Occurrences that trigger ethical considerations and state changes

Description: Before applying to XYZ Consultants, Engineer Intern A had twice attempted and failed the PE exam, a fact that later became material to the nondisclosure question.

Temporal Marker: Prior to the job application and interview interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Two Prior Exam Failures
  • PE Licensure Not Yet Achieved
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Two Prior Exam Failures; PE Licensure Not Yet Achieved
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Before applying to XYZ Consultants, Engineer Intern A had twice attempted and failed the PE exam, a fact that later became material to the nondisclosure question.
  • temporalMarker content: Prior to the job application and interview
  • textReferences content: he stopped short of pointing out that he had failed the PE exam twice before; Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam
  • eventType content: automatic
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 1
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/130#",
    "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/130#Event_Prior_Exam_Failures",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T15:16:52.959693+00:00",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.9",
  "proeth:description": "Before applying to XYZ Consultants, Engineer Intern A had twice attempted and failed the PE exam, a fact that later became material to the nondisclosure question.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "automatic",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Two Prior Exam Failures",
    "PE Licensure Not Yet Achieved"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Prior to the job application and interview",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 1,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "he stopped short of pointing out that he had failed the PE exam twice before",
    "Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Prior Exam Failures"
}

Description: Engineer Intern A's third attempt to pass the PE exam was unsuccessful, leaving the job requirement of licensure within 90 days of hire unmet and placing his employment position at risk.

Temporal Marker: Revealed when results were released, a month after starting work instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • PE Licensure Requirement Unmet
  • Shaky Employment Position
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: PE Licensure Requirement Unmet; Shaky Employment Position
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer Intern A's third attempt to pass the PE exam was unsuccessful, leaving the job requirement of licensure within 90 days of hire unmet and placing his employment position at risk.
  • temporalMarker content: Revealed when results were released, a month after starting work
  • textReferences content: attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful; Engineer Intern A's very shaky position with the firm, given failure to pass the PE exam and achieve licensure, as per the job requirement
  • eventType content: automatic
  • 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/130#",
    "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/130#Event_Third_Exam_Failure",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T15:16:52.960341+00:00",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.9",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A\u0027s third attempt to pass the PE exam was unsuccessful, leaving the job requirement of licensure within 90 days of hire unmet and placing his employment position at risk.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "automatic",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "PE Licensure Requirement Unmet",
    "Shaky Employment Position"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Revealed when results were released, a month after starting work",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 6,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful",
    "Engineer Intern A\u0027s very shaky position with the firm, given failure to pass the PE exam and achieve licensure, as per the job requirement"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Third Exam Failure"
}

Description: The PE exam results were released by the examining authority, revealing that Engineer Intern A's third attempt to pass the exam was unsuccessful.

Temporal Marker: A month after Engineer Intern A started work instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Third Exam Failure
  • PE Licensure Requirement Unmet
Terminates (1)
  • Expected Licensure Track
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Third Exam Failure; PE Licensure Requirement Unmet
  • terminates: Expected Licensure Track
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The PE exam results were released by the examining authority, revealing that Engineer Intern A's third attempt to pass the exam was unsuccessful.
  • temporalMarker content: A month after Engineer Intern A started work
  • textReferences content: A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A indicated to hissupervisor that the PE exam results had been released
  • eventType content: automatic
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 7
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/130#",
    "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/130#Event_Exam_Results_Release",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T15:16:52.960298+00:00",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.92",
  "proeth:description": "The PE exam results were released by the examining authority, revealing that Engineer Intern A\u0027s third attempt to pass the exam was unsuccessful.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "automatic",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Third Exam Failure",
    "PE Licensure Requirement Unmet"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "A month after Engineer Intern A started work",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 7,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Expected Licensure Track"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A indicated to hissupervisor that the PE exam results had been released"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Exam Results Release"
}

Description: Under State X licensing board rules, the third exam failure automatically triggered a requirement for additional experience and new references before Engineer Intern A may sit for the exam again.

Temporal Marker: Following the third exam failure instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Reexamination Restriction Active
Terminates (1)
  • Imminent Licensure Prospect
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Reexamination Restriction Active
  • terminates: Imminent Licensure Prospect
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Under State X licensing board rules, the third exam failure automatically triggered a requirement for additional experience and new references before Engineer Intern A may sit for the exam again.
  • temporalMarker content: Following the third exam failure
  • textReferences content: the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again
  • eventType content: automatic
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 9
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/130#",
    "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/130#Event_Reexamination_Restriction_Triggered",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T15:16:52.960364+00:00",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.9",
  "proeth:description": "Under State X licensing board rules, the third exam failure automatically triggered a requirement for additional experience and new references before Engineer Intern A may sit for the exam again.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "automatic",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Reexamination Restriction Active"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Following the third exam failure",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 9,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Imminent Licensure Prospect"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Reexamination Restriction Triggered"
}
Causal Chains (6)
NESS test analysis: Necessary Element of Sufficient Set

Causal Language: Engineer Intern A, an Engineer Intern in State Y with a BS in engineering, an MS in management, and five years of experience, was planning on relocating to State X and applied for a position advertised by XYZ Consultants.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer Intern A's decision to apply for the XYZ Consultants position
  • The advertised requirement of a PE in State X (required or achieved within 90 days)
  • An interview being granted by XYZ Consultants
Sufficient Factors:
  • Application to a position whose advertisement listed PE licensure as a requirement, combined with the interview process, was sufficient to prompt discussion of licensure status
Counterfactual Test: Without applying for the position, no interview would have occurred and no disclosure regarding licensure status would have been made
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Job Application Submission
    Engineer Intern A applies for the position at XYZ Consultants while planning relocation to State X
  2. Interview Occurs
    XYZ Consultants interviews Engineer Intern A regarding the advertised position
  3. Licensure Status Disclosure
    Engineer Intern A explains he is not a licensed PE and indicates intent to take the PE exam in the coming weeks
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Job Application Submission
  • effect: Licensure Status Disclosure
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer Intern A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer Intern A, an Engineer Intern in State Y with a BS in engineering, an MS in management, and five years of experience, was planning on relocating to State X and applied for a position advertised by XYZ Consultants.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer Intern A's decision to apply for the XYZ Consultants position; The advertised requirement of a PE in State X (required or achieved within 90 days); An interview being granted by XYZ Consultants
  • sufficientFactors content: Application to a position whose advertisement listed PE licensure as a requirement, combined with the interview process, was sufficient to prompt discussion of licensure status
  • counterfactual content: Without applying for the position, no interview would have occurred and no disclosure regarding licensure status would have been made
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew he was not a licensed PE and knew the advertisement required a PE in State X or licensure within 90 days of hire
  • interveningFactors content: XYZ Consultants' advertised licensure requirement; Planned relocation to State X
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Job Application Submission', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer Intern A applies for the position at XYZ Consultants while planning relocation to State X'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Interview Occurs', 'proeth:description': 'XYZ Consultants interviews Engineer Intern A regarding the advertised position'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Licensure Status Disclosure', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer Intern A explains he is not a licensed PE and indicates intent to take the PE exam in the coming weeks'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/130#",
    "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/130#CausalChain_1",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T15:16:52.960574+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew he was not a licensed PE and knew the advertisement required a PE in State X or licensure within 90 days of hire",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer Intern A, an Engineer Intern in State Y with a BS in engineering, an MS in management, and five years of experience, was planning on relocating to State X and applied for a position advertised by XYZ Consultants.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A applies for the position at XYZ Consultants while planning relocation to State X",
      "proeth:element": "Job Application Submission",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "XYZ Consultants interviews Engineer Intern A regarding the advertised position",
      "proeth:element": "Interview Occurs",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A explains he is not a licensed PE and indicates intent to take the PE exam in the coming weeks",
      "proeth:element": "Licensure Status Disclosure",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Job Application Submission",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without applying for the position, no interview would have occurred and no disclosure regarding licensure status would have been made",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Licensure Status Disclosure",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "XYZ Consultants\u0027 advertised licensure requirement",
    "Planned relocation to State X"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer Intern A\u0027s decision to apply for the XYZ Consultants position",
    "The advertised requirement of a PE in State X (required or achieved within 90 days)",
    "An interview being granted by XYZ Consultants"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer Intern A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Application to a position whose advertisement listed PE licensure as a requirement, combined with the interview process, was sufficient to prompt discussion of licensure status"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam, and XYZ Consultants did not ask.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Two prior unsuccessful PE exam attempts existed as undisclosed material history
  • Engineer Intern A's choice not to volunteer this information
  • XYZ Consultants' failure to ask about prior exam attempts
Sufficient Factors:
  • Existence of prior failures combined with Engineer Intern A's silence and the employer's failure to inquire was sufficient to produce the nondisclosure situation
Counterfactual Test: Had there been no prior exam failures, there would have been nothing material to withhold; the nondisclosure issue would not exist
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer Intern A
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Prior Exam Failures
    Engineer Intern A twice attempts and fails the PE exam before applying to XYZ Consultants
  2. Interview Occurs
    During the interview, licensure status is discussed but past exam attempts are not raised
  3. Nondisclosure of Exam Failures
    Engineer Intern A stops short of pointing out that he had failed the PE exam twice before, and XYZ Consultants does not ask
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Prior Exam Failures
  • effect: Nondisclosure of Exam Failures
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer Intern A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam, and XYZ Consultants did not ask.
  • necessaryFactors content: Two prior unsuccessful PE exam attempts existed as undisclosed material history; Engineer Intern A's choice not to volunteer this information; XYZ Consultants' failure to ask about prior exam attempts
  • sufficientFactors content: Existence of prior failures combined with Engineer Intern A's silence and the employer's failure to inquire was sufficient to produce the nondisclosure situation
  • counterfactual content: Had there been no prior exam failures, there would have been nothing material to withhold; the nondisclosure issue would not exist
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew of his two previous failed attempts to pass the PE exam and most likely felt that passage of the PE exam on the third attempt was imminent
  • interveningFactors content: XYZ Consultants did not ask about prior exam attempts; Right to privacy (nondisclosure) considerations
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Prior Exam Failures', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer Intern A twice attempts and fails the PE exam before applying to XYZ Consultants'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Interview Occurs', 'proeth:description': 'During the interview, licensure status is discussed but past exam attempts are not raised'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Nondisclosure of Exam Failures', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer Intern A stops short of pointing out that he had failed the PE exam twice before, and XYZ Consultants does not ask'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/130#",
    "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/130#CausalChain_2",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T15:16:52.960614+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew of his two previous failed attempts to pass the PE exam and most likely felt that passage of the PE exam on the third attempt was imminent",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam, and XYZ Consultants did not ask.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A twice attempts and fails the PE exam before applying to XYZ Consultants",
      "proeth:element": "Prior Exam Failures",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "During the interview, licensure status is discussed but past exam attempts are not raised",
      "proeth:element": "Interview Occurs",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A stops short of pointing out that he had failed the PE exam twice before, and XYZ Consultants does not ask",
      "proeth:element": "Nondisclosure of Exam Failures",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Prior Exam Failures",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had there been no prior exam failures, there would have been nothing material to withhold; the nondisclosure issue would not exist",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Nondisclosure of Exam Failures",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "XYZ Consultants did not ask about prior exam attempts",
    "Right to privacy (nondisclosure) considerations"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Two prior unsuccessful PE exam attempts existed as undisclosed material history",
    "Engineer Intern A\u0027s choice not to volunteer this information",
    "XYZ Consultants\u0027 failure to ask about prior exam attempts"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer Intern A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Existence of prior failures combined with Engineer Intern A\u0027s silence and the employer\u0027s failure to inquire was sufficient to produce the nondisclosure situation"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Had Engineer Intern A disclosed two previous failures to pass the exam, there was some risk XYZ Consultants would not have offered employment in the first place.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • XYZ Consultants' incomplete picture of Engineer Intern A's exam history
  • Engineer Intern A's otherwise acceptable education and experience qualifications
  • XYZ Consultants' expectation that Engineer Intern A was on track to obtain a PE license
Sufficient Factors:
  • Acceptable education and experience credentials, plus a stated confident plan to pass the PE exam, without knowledge of past failures, was sufficient to secure the offer
Counterfactual Test: Had the failures been disclosed, there was some risk XYZ Consultants would not have offered employment, though the offer might still have been made with full knowledge
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer Intern A
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Nondisclosure of Exam Failures
    Engineer Intern A does not indicate his previous two unsuccessful attempts to pass the PE exam
  2. Employer's Incomplete Assessment
    XYZ Consultants evaluates Engineer Intern A based on his acceptable education and experience and his stated intention to take the PE exam
  3. Employment Offer
    XYZ Consultants offers the position with the expectation that Engineer Intern A was on track to obtain a PE license
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Nondisclosure of Exam Failures
  • effect: Employment Offer
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer Intern A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Had Engineer Intern A disclosed two previous failures to pass the exam, there was some risk XYZ Consultants would not have offered employment in the first place.
  • necessaryFactors content: XYZ Consultants' incomplete picture of Engineer Intern A's exam history; Engineer Intern A's otherwise acceptable education and experience qualifications; XYZ Consultants' expectation that Engineer Intern A was on track to obtain a PE license
  • sufficientFactors content: Acceptable education and experience credentials, plus a stated confident plan to pass the PE exam, without knowledge of past failures, was sufficient to secure the offer
  • counterfactual content: Had the failures been disclosed, there was some risk XYZ Consultants would not have offered employment, though the offer might still have been made with full knowledge
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew of his two prior exam failures and knew the employer expected licensure within 90 days of hire
  • interveningFactors content: XYZ Consultants did not ask about exam history; XYZ Consultants' independent hiring judgment
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Nondisclosure of Exam Failures', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer Intern A does not indicate his previous two unsuccessful attempts to pass the PE exam'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': "Employer's Incomplete Assessment", 'proeth:description': 'XYZ Consultants evaluates Engineer Intern A based on his acceptable education and experience and his stated intention to take the PE exam'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Employment Offer', 'proeth:description': 'XYZ Consultants offers the position with the expectation that Engineer Intern A was on track to obtain a PE license'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/130#",
    "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/130#CausalChain_3",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T15:16:52.960641+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew of his two prior exam failures and knew the employer expected licensure within 90 days of hire",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Had Engineer Intern A disclosed two previous failures to pass the exam, there was some risk XYZ Consultants would not have offered employment in the first place.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A does not indicate his previous two unsuccessful attempts to pass the PE exam",
      "proeth:element": "Nondisclosure of Exam Failures",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "XYZ Consultants evaluates Engineer Intern A based on his acceptable education and experience and his stated intention to take the PE exam",
      "proeth:element": "Employer\u0027s Incomplete Assessment",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "XYZ Consultants offers the position with the expectation that Engineer Intern A was on track to obtain a PE license",
      "proeth:element": "Employment Offer",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Nondisclosure of Exam Failures",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had the failures been disclosed, there was some risk XYZ Consultants would not have offered employment, though the offer might still have been made with full knowledge",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Employment Offer",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "XYZ Consultants did not ask about exam history",
    "XYZ Consultants\u0027 independent hiring judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "XYZ Consultants\u0027 incomplete picture of Engineer Intern A\u0027s exam history",
    "Engineer Intern A\u0027s otherwise acceptable education and experience qualifications",
    "XYZ Consultants\u0027 expectation that Engineer Intern A was on track to obtain a PE license"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer Intern A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Acceptable education and experience credentials, plus a stated confident plan to pass the PE exam, without knowledge of past failures, was sufficient to secure the offer"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A indicated to hissupervisor that the PE exam results had been released and that histhird attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Release of exam results by the examining authority
  • Engineer Intern A's employment relationship requiring licensure within 90 days
  • Engineer Intern A's decision to inform his supervisor
Sufficient Factors:
  • The release of unfavorable results while employed under a licensure deadline, combined with Engineer Intern A's choice to disclose, was sufficient for the disclosure to the supervisor
Counterfactual Test: Without the results being released, there would have been no result to disclose; the disclosure could not have occurred
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Third Exam Failure
    Engineer Intern A's third attempt to pass the PE exam is unsuccessful
  2. Exam Results Release
    The PE exam results are released, confirming the unsuccessful third attempt
  3. Exam Result Disclosure
    Engineer Intern A informs his supervisor of the failed third attempt and the licensing board's reexamination restrictions
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Exam Results Release
  • effect: Exam Result Disclosure
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer Intern A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A indicated to hissupervisor that the PE exam results had been released and that histhird attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful.
  • necessaryFactors content: Release of exam results by the examining authority; Engineer Intern A's employment relationship requiring licensure within 90 days; Engineer Intern A's decision to inform his supervisor
  • sufficientFactors content: The release of unfavorable results while employed under a licensure deadline, combined with Engineer Intern A's choice to disclose, was sufficient for the disclosure to the supervisor
  • counterfactual content: Without the results being released, there would have been no result to disclose; the disclosure could not have occurred
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew his third attempt had been unsuccessful and that licensure within 90 days was a job requirement
  • interveningFactors content: Examining authority's results-release schedule
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Third Exam Failure', 'proeth:description': "Engineer Intern A's third attempt to pass the PE exam is unsuccessful"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Exam Results Release', 'proeth:description': 'The PE exam results are released, confirming the unsuccessful third attempt'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Exam Result Disclosure', 'proeth:description': "Engineer Intern A informs his supervisor of the failed third attempt and the licensing board's reexamination restrictions"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/130#",
    "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/130#CausalChain_4",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T15:16:52.960678+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew his third attempt had been unsuccessful and that licensure within 90 days was a job requirement",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A indicated to hissupervisor that the PE exam results had been released and that histhird attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsuccessful.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A\u0027s third attempt to pass the PE exam is unsuccessful",
      "proeth:element": "Third Exam Failure",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The PE exam results are released, confirming the unsuccessful third attempt",
      "proeth:element": "Exam Results Release",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A informs his supervisor of the failed third attempt and the licensing board\u0027s reexamination restrictions",
      "proeth:element": "Exam Result Disclosure",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Exam Results Release",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the results being released, there would have been no result to disclose; the disclosure could not have occurred",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Exam Result Disclosure",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Examining authority\u0027s results-release schedule"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Release of exam results by the examining authority",
    "Engineer Intern A\u0027s employment relationship requiring licensure within 90 days",
    "Engineer Intern A\u0027s decision to inform his supervisor"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer Intern A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The release of unfavorable results while employed under a licensure deadline, combined with Engineer Intern A\u0027s choice to disclose, was sufficient for the disclosure to the supervisor"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer Intern A also explained that the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Third unsuccessful attempt at the PE exam
  • State X licensing board rule imposing requirements after a third failure
  • Prior two exam failures establishing the count
Sufficient Factors:
  • The third failure under the State X licensing board's rule was sufficient to trigger the requirement for additional experience and new references
Counterfactual Test: Had Engineer Intern A passed on the third attempt, the reexamination restriction would not have been triggered and the 90-day licensure requirement could have been met
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer Intern A
Type: indirect
Within Agent Control: No

Causal Sequence:
  1. Prior Exam Failures
    Two previous unsuccessful attempts establish the failure count
  2. Third Exam Failure
    The third attempt to pass the PE exam is unsuccessful
  3. Reexamination Restriction Triggered
    State X licensing board rules require additional experience and new references before sitting for the exam again
  4. Job Requirement Unattainable
    PE licensure within 90 days of the date of hire becomes impossible to satisfy
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Third Exam Failure
  • effect: Reexamination Restriction Triggered
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer Intern A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer Intern A also explained that the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again.
  • necessaryFactors content: Third unsuccessful attempt at the PE exam; State X licensing board rule imposing requirements after a third failure; Prior two exam failures establishing the count
  • sufficientFactors content: The third failure under the State X licensing board's rule was sufficient to trigger the requirement for additional experience and new references
  • counterfactual content: Had Engineer Intern A passed on the third attempt, the reexamination restriction would not have been triggered and the 90-day licensure requirement could have been met
  • agentKnowledge content: Was aware of the board's rules following a third failure, as he explained them to his supervisor
  • interveningFactors content: State X licensing board regulations; Exam difficulty and grading by the examining authority
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Prior Exam Failures', 'proeth:description': 'Two previous unsuccessful attempts establish the failure count'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Third Exam Failure', 'proeth:description': 'The third attempt to pass the PE exam is unsuccessful'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Reexamination Restriction Triggered', 'proeth:description': 'State X licensing board rules require additional experience and new references before sitting for the exam again'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Job Requirement Unattainable', 'proeth:description': 'PE licensure within 90 days of the date of hire becomes impossible to satisfy'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: indirect
  • withinAgentControl assessment: False
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/130#",
    "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/130#CausalChain_5",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T15:16:52.960703+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Was aware of the board\u0027s rules following a third failure, as he explained them to his supervisor",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer Intern A also explained that the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third failure before sitting for the exam again.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Two previous unsuccessful attempts establish the failure count",
      "proeth:element": "Prior Exam Failures",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The third attempt to pass the PE exam is unsuccessful",
      "proeth:element": "Third Exam Failure",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "State X licensing board rules require additional experience and new references before sitting for the exam again",
      "proeth:element": "Reexamination Restriction Triggered",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "PE licensure within 90 days of the date of hire becomes impossible to satisfy",
      "proeth:element": "Job Requirement Unattainable",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Third Exam Failure",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer Intern A passed on the third attempt, the reexamination restriction would not have been triggered and the 90-day licensure requirement could have been met",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Reexamination Restriction Triggered",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "State X licensing board regulations",
    "Exam difficulty and grading by the examining authority"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Third unsuccessful attempt at the PE exam",
    "State X licensing board rule imposing requirements after a third failure",
    "Prior two exam failures establishing the count"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "indirect",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer Intern A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The third failure under the State X licensing board\u0027s rule was sufficient to trigger the requirement for additional experience and new references"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": false
}

Causal Language: The "prudent" part of disclosure is revealed in Engineer Intern A's very shaky position with the firm, given failure to pass the PE exam and achieve licensure, as per the job requirement.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Nondisclosure of the two prior exam failures during the interview
  • Third exam failure leaving the job requirement unmet
  • The Board's obligation to weigh privacy against the duty to avoid omitting a material fact
Sufficient Factors:
  • The combination of nondisclosure at hiring and the subsequent third failure creating a 'very shaky position' was sufficient to prompt the Board's nuanced analysis and ruling
Counterfactual Test: Had Engineer Intern A passed the exam, the nondisclosure would likely have remained inconsequential; had he disclosed, the ethical question would not have arisen in this form
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer Intern A
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Nondisclosure of Exam Failures
    Engineer Intern A stops short of pointing out two prior failures at the interview
  2. Employment Offer
    XYZ Consultants hires him expecting licensure within 90 days
  3. Third Exam Failure
    The third attempt fails, leaving the job requirement unsatisfied
  4. Shaky Professional Position
    Engineer Intern A is left in a very shaky position with the firm, with consequences of losing employment significantly amplified
  5. Ethical Review Ruling
    The Board rules the facts tip toward Case 97-11: disclosure was prudent but arguably not ethically required
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Third Exam Failure
  • effect: Ethical Review Ruling
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer Intern A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: The "prudent" part of disclosure is revealed in Engineer Intern A's very shaky position with the firm, given failure to pass the PE exam and achieve licensure, as per the job requirement.
  • necessaryFactors content: Nondisclosure of the two prior exam failures during the interview; Third exam failure leaving the job requirement unmet; The Board's obligation to weigh privacy against the duty to avoid omitting a material fact
  • sufficientFactors content: The combination of nondisclosure at hiring and the subsequent third failure creating a 'very shaky position' was sufficient to prompt the Board's nuanced analysis and ruling
  • counterfactual content: Had Engineer Intern A passed the exam, the nondisclosure would likely have remained inconsequential; had he disclosed, the ethical question would not have arisen in this form
  • agentKnowledge content: Most likely felt that passage of the PE exam on the third attempt was imminent, so viewed nondisclosure as low-risk
  • interveningFactors content: State X licensing board reexamination rules; XYZ Consultants' failure to inquire about exam history
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Nondisclosure of Exam Failures', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer Intern A stops short of pointing out two prior failures at the interview'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Employment Offer', 'proeth:description': 'XYZ Consultants hires him expecting licensure within 90 days'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Third Exam Failure', 'proeth:description': 'The third attempt fails, leaving the job requirement unsatisfied'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Shaky Professional Position', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer Intern A is left in a very shaky position with the firm, with consequences of losing employment significantly amplified'}; {'proeth:step': 5, 'proeth:element': 'Ethical Review Ruling', 'proeth:description': 'The Board rules the facts tip toward Case 97-11: disclosure was prudent but arguably not ethically required'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/130#",
    "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/130#CausalChain_6",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-14T15:16:52.960725+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Most likely felt that passage of the PE exam on the third attempt was imminent, so viewed nondisclosure as low-risk",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "The \"prudent\" part of disclosure is revealed in Engineer Intern A\u0027s very shaky position with the firm, given failure to pass the PE exam and achieve licensure, as per the job requirement.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A stops short of pointing out two prior failures at the interview",
      "proeth:element": "Nondisclosure of Exam Failures",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "XYZ Consultants hires him expecting licensure within 90 days",
      "proeth:element": "Employment Offer",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The third attempt fails, leaving the job requirement unsatisfied",
      "proeth:element": "Third Exam Failure",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A is left in a very shaky position with the firm, with consequences of losing employment significantly amplified",
      "proeth:element": "Shaky Professional Position",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The Board rules the facts tip toward Case 97-11: disclosure was prudent but arguably not ethically required",
      "proeth:element": "Ethical Review Ruling",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Third Exam Failure",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer Intern A passed the exam, the nondisclosure would likely have remained inconsequential; had he disclosed, the ethical question would not have arisen in this form",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Ethical Review Ruling",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "State X licensing board reexamination rules",
    "XYZ Consultants\u0027 failure to inquire about exam history"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Nondisclosure of the two prior exam failures during the interview",
    "Third exam failure leaving the job requirement unmet",
    "The Board\u0027s obligation to weigh privacy against the duty to avoid omitting a material fact"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer Intern A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The combination of nondisclosure at hiring and the subsequent third failure creating a \u0027very shaky position\u0027 was sufficient to prompt the Board\u0027s nuanced analysis and ruling"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}
Allen Temporal Relations (10)
Interval algebra relationships with OWL-Time standard properties
From Entity Allen Relation To Entity OWL-Time Property Evidence
planned relocation to State X before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		availability for work time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		he will be relocating to State X in several months and will be available for work
two prior failed PE exam attempts before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		interview with XYZ Consultants time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer Intern A did not indicate in the interview his previous attempts to pass the PE exam, and X... [more]
interview and disclosure of unlicensed status before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		employment offer by XYZ Consultants time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		At his interview, Engineer Intern A explains he is not a licensed PE... XYZ Consultants offered the ... [more]
employment offer before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		start of work at XYZ Consultants time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		XYZ Consultants offered the position to Engineer Intern A... A month after starting work
third PE exam attempt before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		release of PE exam results time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		the PE exam results had been released and that his third attempt to pass the PE exam had been unsucc... [more]
release of PE exam results during
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2 		Engineer Intern A's employment at XYZ Consultants time:intervalDuring
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring 		A month after starting work, Engineer Intern A indicated to his supervisor that the PE exam results ... [more]
disclosure of third failure to supervisor after
Entity1 is after Entity2 		release of PE exam results time:intervalAfter
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalAfter 		Engineer Intern A indicated to his supervisor that the PE exam results had been released and that hi... [more]
obtaining PE licensure during
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2 		90-day period after date of hire time:intervalDuring
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring 		a PE in State X required or achieved within 90 days after date of hire
acquiring additional experience and new references before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		sitting for the PE exam again (fourth attempt) time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		the State X licensing board required additional experience and new references following a third fail... [more]
third exam failure before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		acquiring additional experience and new references time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		required additional experience and new references following a third failure
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