This page shows the pre-commit working store (the raw extraction under review). This case was committed to OntServe on 2026-07-25 16:26; the committed record differs by design (deduplication, typing, and agent binding are applied at commit). View the committed record
Overview
Provenance Draft

PASS 3: Temporal Dynamics

Case 169: Review of Original Engineer's Design

34 entities 7 actions 5 events 8 causal chains 13 temporal relations
Timeline Overview
Action Event 12 sequenced markers
Professional Services Engagement At project outset, approximately eleven years before the complaint
Ownership Change Approximately seven years after original occupancy
Joint Inspection Participation After the owner's notification, approximately seven years after occupancy
Additional Complaint Communication After the joint wiring inspection
Design Review and Reporting After the owner raised the plumbing and heating complaints
Registration Board Complaint After Engineer B filed his report with the owner
Project Completion Four years after Engineer A was retained
Payment Completion Upon project completion
Wiring Inspection Result After the owner's request for a joint inspection
Design Inadequacy Finding After Engineer B's further study of the plumbing and heating systems
OWL-Time Temporal Structure 13 relations time: = w3.org/2006/time
Engineer A's retention by prime professional engineer time:intervalBefore project completion and occupancy
project completion and occupancy time:intervalBefore change of facility ownership
Engineer A's full payment for services time:intervalFinishes Engineer A's connection with the project
change of facility ownership time:intervalBefore new owner retaining Engineer B for inspection
owner informing Engineer A of wiring problems time:intervalBefore joint inspection of the wiring
joint wiring inspection (Engineer A, Engineer B, city wiring inspector) time:intervalBefore owner's complaint concerning plumbing and heating systems
owner's plumbing and heating complaint time:intervalBefore Engineer B's further study and report
Engineer B's further study time:intervalMeets Engineer B filing report with owner
Engineer B's report to owner time:intervalBefore Engineer A's complaint to state registration board
termination of Engineer A's connection with the project time:intervalBefore Engineer B's review of the original designs
Engineer B's review of original designs time:intervalDuring Engineer B's engineering inspection/evaluation of the facility
all case events time:intervalBefore Board's ethical discussion and analysis
existence of Code Sections 12 and 12(a) time:intervalBefore publication of the note stating the sections no longer exist
Extracted Actions (7)
Volitional professional decisions with intentions and ethical context

Description: Engineer A accepted retention by the prime professional engineer to provide mechanical and electrical engineering services for a large housing project.

Temporal Marker: At project outset, approximately eleven years before the complaint interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Engineer A Original Design Responsibility

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Provide mechanical and electrical engineering design services for the housing project

Required Capabilities:
Mechanical engineering design Electrical engineering design
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • requiresCapability: Mechanical engineering design; Electrical engineering design
  • initiates: Engineer A Original Design Responsibility
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A accepted retention by the prime professional engineer to provide mechanical and electrical engineering services for a large housing project.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: At project outset, approximately eleven years before the complaint
  • eventRoleContext content: Mechanical and Electrical Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Provide mechanical and electrical engineering design services for the housing project
  • textReferences content: Engineer A had been retained by the prime professional engineer to provide mechanical and electrical engineering services for a large housing project.
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 1
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/169#",
    "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/169#Action_Professional_Services_Engagement",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T09:05:58.706190+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A accepted retention by the prime professional engineer to provide mechanical and electrical engineering services for a large housing project.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Mechanical and Electrical Engineer",
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Engineer A Original Design Responsibility"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Provide mechanical and electrical engineering design services for the housing project",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Mechanical engineering design",
    "Electrical engineering design"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "At project outset, approximately eleven years before the complaint",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 1,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A had been retained by the prime professional engineer to provide mechanical and electrical engineering services for a large housing project."
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Professional Services Engagement"
}

Description: The new owner retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility after acquiring ownership.

Temporal Marker: Approximately seven years after original occupancy instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Engineer B Review Engagement

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Obtain an independent engineering evaluation of the facility to resolve current problems

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Review of Engineer A's original design work
Guided By Principles:
  • Client and Public Interest
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Client and Public Interest
  • initiates: Engineer B Review Engagement
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The new owner retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility after acquiring ownership.
  • hasAgent content: New Owner
  • temporalMarker content: Approximately seven years after original occupancy
  • eventRoleContext content: Facility Owner
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Obtain an independent engineering evaluation of the facility to resolve current problems
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Review of Engineer A's original design work
  • textReferences content: he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility
  • 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/169#",
    "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/169#Action_Inspection_Engineer_Retention",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T09:05:58.706307+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "The new owner retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility after acquiring ownership.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Facility Owner",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Review of Engineer A\u0027s original design work"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Client and Public Interest"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "New Owner",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Engineer B Review Engagement"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Obtain an independent engineering evaluation of the facility to resolve current problems",
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Approximately seven years after original occupancy",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 5,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Inspection Engineer Retention"
}

Description: The new owner informed Engineer A that Engineer B had been retained to inspect the facility and that there were problems associated with the wiring, giving Engineer A knowledge of the review.

Temporal Marker: Approximately seven years after original occupancy instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Engineer A Knowledge of Review

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Make Engineer A aware of the inspection and the wiring concerns

Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Engineer A Knowledge of Review
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The new owner informed Engineer A that Engineer B had been retained to inspect the facility and that there were problems associated with the wiring, giving Engineer A knowledge of the review.
  • hasAgent content: New Owner
  • temporalMarker content: Approximately seven years after original occupancy
  • eventRoleContext content: Facility Owner
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Make Engineer A aware of the inspection and the wiring concerns
  • textReferences content: The new owner informed Engineer A he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility, and there were problems associated with the wiring.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 6
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/169#",
    "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/169#Action_Review_Notification",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T09:05:58.706348+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "The new owner informed Engineer A that Engineer B had been retained to inspect the facility and that there were problems associated with the wiring, giving Engineer A knowledge of the review.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Facility Owner",
  "proeth:hasAgent": "New Owner",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Engineer A Knowledge of Review"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Make Engineer A aware of the inspection and the wiring concerns",
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Approximately seven years after original occupancy",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 6,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "The new owner informed Engineer A he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility, and there were problems associated with the wiring."
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Review Notification"
}

Description: At the owner's request, Engineers A and B participated with the city wiring inspector in a joint inspection of the wiring, which revealed no defects.

Temporal Marker: After the owner's notification, approximately seven years after occupancy interval

Fluent Transitions:
Terminates (1)
  • Wiring Defect Concern

Mental State: cooperative and deliberate

Intended Outcome: Determine jointly whether defects existed in the wiring

Obligation Engagement:
At stake (1)
  • Duty to Review Another Engineer's Work Only with Knowledge or After Termination
Guided By Principles:
  • Client and Public Interest
Required Capabilities:
Electrical inspection Engineering evaluation
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Client and Public Interest
  • requiresCapability: Electrical inspection; Engineering evaluation
  • terminates: Wiring Defect Concern
  • raisesObligation: Duty to Review Another Engineer's Work Only with Knowledge or After Termination
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: At the owner's request, Engineers A and B participated with the city wiring inspector in a joint inspection of the wiring, which revealed no defects.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A and Engineer B
  • temporalMarker content: After the owner's notification, approximately seven years after occupancy
  • eventRoleContext content: Professional Engineers
  • hasMentalState content: cooperative and deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Determine jointly whether defects existed in the wiring
  • textReferences content: a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector; The inspection did not reveal any defects in the wiring.
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 7
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/169#",
    "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/169#Action_Joint_Inspection_Participation",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T09:05:58.706378+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "At the owner\u0027s request, Engineers A and B participated with the city wiring inspector in a joint inspection of the wiring, which revealed no defects.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Professional Engineers",
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Client and Public Interest"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A and Engineer B",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "cooperative and deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Determine jointly whether defects existed in the wiring",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [
    "Duty to Review Another Engineer\u0027s Work Only with Knowledge or After Termination"
  ],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Electrical inspection",
    "Engineering evaluation"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After the owner\u0027s notification, approximately seven years after occupancy",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 7,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Wiring Defect Concern"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector",
    "The inspection did not reveal any defects in the wiring."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Joint Inspection Participation"
}

Description: After the wiring inspection found no defects, the owner advised Engineer B of his complaint concerning the plumbing and heating systems.

Temporal Marker: After the joint wiring inspection instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Plumbing and Heating Complaint Pending

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Direct Engineer B's attention to the plumbing and heating problems for further investigation

Guided By Principles:
  • Client and Public Interest
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Client and Public Interest
  • initiates: Plumbing and Heating Complaint Pending
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: After the wiring inspection found no defects, the owner advised Engineer B of his complaint concerning the plumbing and heating systems.
  • hasAgent content: New Owner
  • temporalMarker content: After the joint wiring inspection
  • eventRoleContext content: Facility Owner
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Direct Engineer B's attention to the plumbing and heating problems for further investigation
  • textReferences content: The owner advised Engineer B of his complaint concerning the plumbing and heating systems.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 9
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/169#",
    "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/169#Action_Additional_Complaint_Communication",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T09:05:58.706402+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "After the wiring inspection found no defects, the owner advised Engineer B of his complaint concerning the plumbing and heating systems.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Facility Owner",
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Client and Public Interest"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "New Owner",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Plumbing and Heating Complaint Pending"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Direct Engineer B\u0027s attention to the plumbing and heating problems for further investigation",
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After the joint wiring inspection",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 9,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "The owner advised Engineer B of his complaint concerning the plumbing and heating systems."
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Additional Complaint Communication"
}

Description: Engineer B conducted a further study of the plumbing and heating systems and filed a report with the owner, finding no plumbing design problem but concluding there were design inadequacies in the original equipment sizing and recommending higher-capacity equipment.

Temporal Marker: After the owner raised the plumbing and heating complaints interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Design Inadequacy Finding Reported
Terminates (1)
  • Plumbing and Heating Complaint Pending

Mental State: deliberate professional judgment, with no showing of intent to injure Engineer A

Intended Outcome: Provide the client with an evaluation of the plumbing and heating systems and a recommendation to resolve the problems

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Criticism of the original equipment sizing specified by Engineer A
Obligation Engagement:
Fulfills (1)
  • Duty to Review Another Engineer's Work Only with Knowledge or After Termination
Guided By Principles:
  • Client and Public Interest
Required Capabilities:
Mechanical systems analysis Equipment sizing evaluation Engineering report preparation
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • fulfillsObligation: Duty to Review Another Engineer's Work Only with Knowledge or After Termination
  • guidedByPrinciple: Client and Public Interest
  • requiresCapability: Mechanical systems analysis; Equipment sizing evaluation; Engineering report preparation
  • initiates: Design Inadequacy Finding Reported
  • terminates: Plumbing and Heating Complaint Pending
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer B conducted a further study of the plumbing and heating systems and filed a report with the owner, finding no plumbing design problem but concluding there were design inadequacies in the original equipment sizing and recommending higher-capacity equipment.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer B
  • temporalMarker content: After the owner raised the plumbing and heating complaints
  • eventRoleContext content: Reviewing Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate professional judgment, with no showing of intent to injure Engineer A
  • intendedOutcome content: Provide the client with an evaluation of the plumbing and heating systems and a recommendation to resolve the problems
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Criticism of the original equipment sizing specified by Engineer A
  • textReferences content: Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner.; concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating; Engineer B recommended the installation of equipment of higher capacity.
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 10
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/169#",
    "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/169#Action_Design_Review_and_Reporting",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T09:05:58.706428+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B conducted a further study of the plumbing and heating systems and filed a report with the owner, finding no plumbing design problem but concluding there were design inadequacies in the original equipment sizing and recommending higher-capacity equipment.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Reviewing Engineer",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Criticism of the original equipment sizing specified by Engineer A"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Duty to Review Another Engineer\u0027s Work Only with Knowledge or After Termination"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Client and Public Interest"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer B",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate professional judgment, with no showing of intent to injure Engineer A",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Design Inadequacy Finding Reported"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Provide the client with an evaluation of the plumbing and heating systems and a recommendation to resolve the problems",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Mechanical systems analysis",
    "Equipment sizing evaluation",
    "Engineering report preparation"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After the owner raised the plumbing and heating complaints",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 10,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Plumbing and Heating Complaint Pending"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner.",
    "concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating",
    "Engineer B recommended the installation of equipment of higher capacity."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Design Review and Reporting"
}

Description: Engineer A filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B's report was not objective, omitted pertinent information, was self-serving at the expense of Engineer A's dignity and reputation, and constituted misconduct.

Temporal Marker: After Engineer B filed his report with the owner instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Board Complaint Pending

Mental State: deliberate and aggrieved

Intended Outcome: Have the registration board find Engineer B guilty of misconduct for criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge

Obligation Engagement:
Fulfills (1)
  • Duty to Present Information of Unethical Practice to the Proper Authority
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • fulfillsObligation: Duty to Present Information of Unethical Practice to the Proper Authority
  • initiates: Board Complaint Pending
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B's report was not objective, omitted pertinent information, was self-serving at the expense of Engineer A's dignity and reputation, and constituted misconduct.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer A
  • temporalMarker content: After Engineer B filed his report with the owner
  • eventRoleContext content: Original Design Engineer
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate and aggrieved
  • intendedOutcome content: Have the registration board find Engineer B guilty of misconduct for criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge
  • textReferences content: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information; Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of "misconduct" in that Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge.
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 12
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/169#",
    "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/169#Action_Registration_Board_Complaint",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T09:05:58.706451+00:00",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B\u0027s report was not objective, omitted pertinent information, was self-serving at the expense of Engineer A\u0027s dignity and reputation, and constituted misconduct.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "Original Design Engineer",
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Duty to Present Information of Unethical Practice to the Proper Authority"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate and aggrieved",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Board Complaint Pending"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Have the registration board find Engineer B guilty of misconduct for criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After Engineer B filed his report with the owner",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 12,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information",
    "Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of \"misconduct\" in that Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge."
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Registration Board Complaint"
}
Extracted Events (5)
Occurrences that trigger ethical considerations and state changes

Description: The large housing project was completed and occupied four years after Engineer A was retained to provide mechanical and electrical engineering services.

Temporal Marker: Four years after Engineer A was retained instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Facility Completed and Occupied
Terminates (1)
  • Active Design Engagement

Caused By Action: Action_Professional_Services_Engagement

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/169#Action_Professional_Services_Engagement
  • initiates: Facility Completed and Occupied
  • terminates: Active Design Engagement
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The large housing project was completed and occupied four years after Engineer A was retained to provide mechanical and electrical engineering services.
  • temporalMarker content: Four years after Engineer A was retained
  • textReferences content: The project was completed and occupied four years later
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 2
  • confidence assessment: 0.93
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/169#",
    "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/169#Event_Project_Completion",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T09:05:58.706530+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/169#Action_Professional_Services_Engagement",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.93",
  "proeth:description": "The large housing project was completed and occupied four years after Engineer A was retained to provide mechanical and electrical engineering services.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Facility Completed and Occupied"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Four years after Engineer A was retained",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 2,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Active Design Engagement"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "The project was completed and occupied four years later"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Project Completion"
}

Description: Engineer A was fully paid for his mechanical and electrical engineering services, closing out his professional connection with the project.

Temporal Marker: Upon project completion instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Engineer A Connection Terminated

Caused By Action: Action_Professional_Services_Engagement

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/169#Action_Professional_Services_Engagement
  • initiates: Engineer A Connection Terminated
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer A was fully paid for his mechanical and electrical engineering services, closing out his professional connection with the project.
  • temporalMarker content: Upon project completion
  • textReferences content: Engineer A was fully paid for his services; the connection of Engineer A with the project had been terminated some years earlier
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 3
  • confidence assessment: 0.9
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/169#",
    "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/169#Event_Payment_Completion",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T09:05:58.706563+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/169#Action_Professional_Services_Engagement",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.9",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A was fully paid for his mechanical and electrical engineering services, closing out his professional connection with the project.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Engineer A Connection Terminated"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Upon project completion",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 3,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A was fully paid for his services",
    "the connection of Engineer A with the project had been terminated some years earlier"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Payment Completion"
}

Description: Approximately seven years after original occupancy, ownership of the housing facility changed hands to a new owner.

Temporal Marker: Approximately seven years after original occupancy instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • New Ownership of Facility
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: New Ownership of Facility
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Approximately seven years after original occupancy, ownership of the housing facility changed hands to a new owner.
  • temporalMarker content: Approximately seven years after original occupancy
  • textReferences content: Approximately seven years after the original occupancy, ownership of the facility changed.
  • eventType content: exogenous
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 4
  • confidence assessment: 0.95
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/169#",
    "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/169#Event_Ownership_Change",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T09:05:58.706585+00:00",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.95",
  "proeth:description": "Approximately seven years after original occupancy, ownership of the housing facility changed hands to a new owner.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "New Ownership of Facility"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Approximately seven years after original occupancy",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 4,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Approximately seven years after the original occupancy, ownership of the facility changed."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Ownership Change"
}

Description: The joint inspection of the wiring by Engineer A, Engineer B, and the city wiring inspector produced a finding of no wiring defects, resolving the wiring complaint.

Temporal Marker: After the owner's request for a joint inspection instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Wiring Cleared of Defects
Terminates (1)
  • Alleged Wiring Problems

Caused By Action: Action_Joint_Inspection_Participation

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/169#Action_Joint_Inspection_Participation
  • initiates: Wiring Cleared of Defects
  • terminates: Alleged Wiring Problems
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: The joint inspection of the wiring by Engineer A, Engineer B, and the city wiring inspector produced a finding of no wiring defects, resolving the wiring complaint.
  • temporalMarker content: After the owner's request for a joint inspection
  • textReferences content: The inspection did not reveal any defects in the wiring.
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 8
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/169#",
    "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/169#Event_Wiring_Inspection_Result",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T09:05:58.706608+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/169#Action_Joint_Inspection_Participation",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.92",
  "proeth:description": "The joint inspection of the wiring by Engineer A, Engineer B, and the city wiring inspector produced a finding of no wiring defects, resolving the wiring complaint.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Wiring Cleared of Defects"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After the owner\u0027s request for a joint inspection",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 8,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Alleged Wiring Problems"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "The inspection did not reveal any defects in the wiring."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Wiring Inspection Result"
}

Description: Engineer B's further study produced a finding that the plumbing design was sound but that the original sizing of the hot water and heating equipment was inadequate, prompting a recommendation for higher-capacity equipment.

Temporal Marker: After Engineer B's further study of the plumbing and heating systems instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Original Design Criticized
  • Equipment Sizing Inadequacy Identified
Terminates (1)
  • Alleged Plumbing Design Problems

Caused By Action: Action_Design_Review_and_Reporting

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/169#Action_Design_Review_and_Reporting
  • initiates: Original Design Criticized; Equipment Sizing Inadequacy Identified
  • terminates: Alleged Plumbing Design Problems
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer B's further study produced a finding that the plumbing design was sound but that the original sizing of the hot water and heating equipment was inadequate, prompting a recommendation for higher-capacity equipment.
  • temporalMarker content: After Engineer B's further study of the plumbing and heating systems
  • textReferences content: The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating.
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 11
  • confidence assessment: 0.88
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/169#",
    "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/169#Event_Design_Inadequacy_Finding",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T09:05:58.706631+00:00",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/169#Action_Design_Review_and_Reporting",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.88",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B\u0027s further study produced a finding that the plumbing design was sound but that the original sizing of the hot water and heating equipment was inadequate, prompting a recommendation for higher-capacity equipment.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Original Design Criticized",
    "Equipment Sizing Inadequacy Identified"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After Engineer B\u0027s further study of the plumbing and heating systems",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 11,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Alleged Plumbing Design Problems"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Design Inadequacy Finding"
}
Causal Chains (8)
NESS test analysis: Necessary Element of Sufficient Set

Causal Language: The new owner informed Engineer A he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility, and there were problems associated with the wiring.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer B's retention had to occur before notice of it could be given
  • Owner's decision to communicate with Engineer A about the review
Sufficient Factors:
  • Retention of Engineer B plus the owner's choice to inform the original engineer was sufficient to give Engineer A knowledge of the review
Counterfactual Test: Without Engineer B's retention there would have been nothing to notify Engineer A about; the notification would not have occurred
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: New owner
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Inspection Engineer Retention
    Owner retains Engineer B to inspect the facility
  2. Review Notification
    Owner informs Engineer A of Engineer B's retention and the wiring concerns
  3. Engineer A's Knowledge of Review
    Engineer A knew that Engineer B had been retained and that the evaluation would necessarily entail a review of the original designs
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Inspection Engineer Retention
  • effect: Review Notification
  • responsibleAgent: New owner
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: The new owner informed Engineer A he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility, and there were problems associated with the wiring.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer B's retention had to occur before notice of it could be given; Owner's decision to communicate with Engineer A about the review
  • sufficientFactors content: Retention of Engineer B plus the owner's choice to inform the original engineer was sufficient to give Engineer A knowledge of the review
  • counterfactual content: Without Engineer B's retention there would have been nothing to notify Engineer A about; the notification would not have occurred
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew Engineer A was the original mechanical and electrical engineer for the project
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Inspection Engineer Retention', 'proeth:description': 'Owner retains Engineer B to inspect the facility'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Review Notification', 'proeth:description': "Owner informs Engineer A of Engineer B's retention and the wiring concerns"}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': "Engineer A's Knowledge of Review", 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A knew that Engineer B had been retained and that the evaluation would necessarily entail a review of the original designs'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/169#",
    "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/169#CausalChain_2",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T09:05:58.706718+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew Engineer A was the original mechanical and electrical engineer for the project",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "The new owner informed Engineer A he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility, and there were problems associated with the wiring.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Owner retains Engineer B to inspect the facility",
      "proeth:element": "Inspection Engineer Retention",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Owner informs Engineer A of Engineer B\u0027s retention and the wiring concerns",
      "proeth:element": "Review Notification",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A knew that Engineer B had been retained and that the evaluation would necessarily entail a review of the original designs",
      "proeth:element": "Engineer A\u0027s Knowledge of Review",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Inspection Engineer Retention",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without Engineer B\u0027s retention there would have been nothing to notify Engineer A about; the notification would not have occurred",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Review Notification",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer B\u0027s retention had to occur before notice of it could be given",
    "Owner\u0027s decision to communicate with Engineer A about the review"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "New owner",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Retention of Engineer B plus the owner\u0027s choice to inform the original engineer was sufficient to give Engineer A knowledge of the review"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Approximately seven years after the original occupancy, ownership of the facility changed. The new owner informed Engineer A he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Transfer of facility ownership to a new party
  • New owner's interest in assessing the condition of the acquired facility
  • Existence of perceived problems (wiring) prompting inspection
Sufficient Factors:
  • New ownership combined with concerns about the facility's systems was enough to motivate retaining an inspecting engineer
Counterfactual Test: Without the ownership change, the original owner had lived with the facility for seven years without commissioning an inspection; Engineer B would likely not have been retained
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: New owner
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Ownership Change
    Ownership of the housing facility changes hands approximately seven years after original occupancy
  2. Perceived Facility Problems
    New owner believes there are problems associated with the wiring
  3. Inspection Engineer Retention
    New owner retains Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Ownership Change
  • effect: Inspection Engineer Retention
  • responsibleAgent: New owner
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Approximately seven years after the original occupancy, ownership of the facility changed. The new owner informed Engineer A he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility
  • necessaryFactors content: Transfer of facility ownership to a new party; New owner's interest in assessing the condition of the acquired facility; Existence of perceived problems (wiring) prompting inspection
  • sufficientFactors content: New ownership combined with concerns about the facility's systems was enough to motivate retaining an inspecting engineer
  • counterfactual content: Without the ownership change, the original owner had lived with the facility for seven years without commissioning an inspection; Engineer B would likely not have been retained
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew he had acquired an existing facility and believed there were problems associated with the wiring
  • interveningFactors content: Age of facility (seven years post-occupancy); Perceived wiring problems
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Ownership Change', 'proeth:description': 'Ownership of the housing facility changes hands approximately seven years after original occupancy'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Perceived Facility Problems', 'proeth:description': 'New owner believes there are problems associated with the wiring'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Inspection Engineer Retention', 'proeth:description': 'New owner retains Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/169#",
    "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/169#CausalChain_1",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T09:05:58.706688+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew he had acquired an existing facility and believed there were problems associated with the wiring",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Approximately seven years after the original occupancy, ownership of the facility changed. The new owner informed Engineer A he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Ownership of the housing facility changes hands approximately seven years after original occupancy",
      "proeth:element": "Ownership Change",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "New owner believes there are problems associated with the wiring",
      "proeth:element": "Perceived Facility Problems",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "New owner retains Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility",
      "proeth:element": "Inspection Engineer Retention",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Ownership Change",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the ownership change, the original owner had lived with the facility for seven years without commissioning an inspection; Engineer B would likely not have been retained",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Inspection Engineer Retention",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Age of facility (seven years post-occupancy)",
    "Perceived wiring problems"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Transfer of facility ownership to a new party",
    "New owner\u0027s interest in assessing the condition of the acquired facility",
    "Existence of perceived problems (wiring) prompting inspection"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "New owner",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "New ownership combined with concerns about the facility\u0027s systems was enough to motivate retaining an inspecting engineer"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: At the owner's request, a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's awareness of the review through the owner's notification
  • Owner's request for a joint inspection
  • Willingness of both engineers and the city inspector to participate
Sufficient Factors:
  • The owner's request coupled with Engineer A's prior notification and both engineers' cooperation was sufficient to bring about the joint inspection
Counterfactual Test: Without notification to Engineer A, a joint inspection involving him could not have been arranged; only Engineer B would have inspected the wiring
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: New owner (with Engineers A and B and the city wiring inspector as cooperating agents)
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Review Notification
    Owner informs Engineer A of Engineer B's retention and the wiring concerns
  2. Owner's Request for Joint Inspection
    Owner requests both engineers and the city wiring inspector jointly inspect the wiring
  3. Joint Inspection Participation
    Engineers A and B and the city wiring inspector conduct the joint wiring inspection
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Review Notification
  • effect: Joint Inspection Participation
  • responsibleAgent: New owner (with Engineers A and B and the city wiring inspector as cooperating agents)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: At the owner's request, a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's awareness of the review through the owner's notification; Owner's request for a joint inspection; Willingness of both engineers and the city inspector to participate
  • sufficientFactors content: The owner's request coupled with Engineer A's prior notification and both engineers' cooperation was sufficient to bring about the joint inspection
  • counterfactual content: Without notification to Engineer A, a joint inspection involving him could not have been arranged; only Engineer B would have inspected the wiring
  • agentKnowledge content: Owner knew of the alleged wiring problems and that both engineers were available to jointly examine them
  • interveningFactors content: City wiring inspector's availability and participation
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Review Notification', 'proeth:description': "Owner informs Engineer A of Engineer B's retention and the wiring concerns"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': "Owner's Request for Joint Inspection", 'proeth:description': 'Owner requests both engineers and the city wiring inspector jointly inspect the wiring'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Joint Inspection Participation', 'proeth:description': 'Engineers A and B and the city wiring inspector conduct the joint wiring inspection'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/169#",
    "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/169#CausalChain_3",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T09:05:58.706740+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Owner knew of the alleged wiring problems and that both engineers were available to jointly examine them",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "At the owner\u0027s request, a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Owner informs Engineer A of Engineer B\u0027s retention and the wiring concerns",
      "proeth:element": "Review Notification",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Owner requests both engineers and the city wiring inspector jointly inspect the wiring",
      "proeth:element": "Owner\u0027s Request for Joint Inspection",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineers A and B and the city wiring inspector conduct the joint wiring inspection",
      "proeth:element": "Joint Inspection Participation",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Review Notification",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without notification to Engineer A, a joint inspection involving him could not have been arranged; only Engineer B would have inspected the wiring",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Joint Inspection Participation",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "City wiring inspector\u0027s availability and participation"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s awareness of the review through the owner\u0027s notification",
    "Owner\u0027s request for a joint inspection",
    "Willingness of both engineers and the city inspector to participate"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "New owner (with Engineers A and B and the city wiring inspector as cooperating agents)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The owner\u0027s request coupled with Engineer A\u0027s prior notification and both engineers\u0027 cooperation was sufficient to bring about the joint inspection"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: The inspection did not reveal any defects in the wiring.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • The joint inspection being conducted
  • Actual condition of the wiring (no defects present or detectable)
Sufficient Factors:
  • Conducting the inspection on wiring that had no discoverable defects was sufficient to produce the no-defect finding
Counterfactual Test: Without the inspection, no finding regarding the wiring could have been produced at all
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineers A and B and the city wiring inspector (joint finding)
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Joint Inspection Participation
    The two engineers and the city wiring inspector jointly inspect the wiring
  2. Wiring Inspection Result
    The inspection does not reveal any defects in the wiring
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Joint Inspection Participation
  • effect: Wiring Inspection Result
  • responsibleAgent: Engineers A and B and the city wiring inspector (joint finding)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: The inspection did not reveal any defects in the wiring.
  • necessaryFactors content: The joint inspection being conducted; Actual condition of the wiring (no defects present or detectable)
  • sufficientFactors content: Conducting the inspection on wiring that had no discoverable defects was sufficient to produce the no-defect finding
  • counterfactual content: Without the inspection, no finding regarding the wiring could have been produced at all
  • agentKnowledge content: All parties knew the purpose was to verify the alleged wiring problems
  • interveningFactors content: Actual physical condition of the wiring
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Joint Inspection Participation', 'proeth:description': 'The two engineers and the city wiring inspector jointly inspect the wiring'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Wiring Inspection Result', 'proeth:description': 'The inspection does not reveal any defects in the wiring'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/169#",
    "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/169#CausalChain_4",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T09:05:58.706758+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "All parties knew the purpose was to verify the alleged wiring problems",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "The inspection did not reveal any defects in the wiring.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "The two engineers and the city wiring inspector jointly inspect the wiring",
      "proeth:element": "Joint Inspection Participation",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The inspection does not reveal any defects in the wiring",
      "proeth:element": "Wiring Inspection Result",
      "proeth:step": 2
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Joint Inspection Participation",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the inspection, no finding regarding the wiring could have been produced at all",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Wiring Inspection Result",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Actual physical condition of the wiring"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "The joint inspection being conducted",
    "Actual condition of the wiring (no defects present or detectable)"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineers A and B and the city wiring inspector (joint finding)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Conducting the inspection on wiring that had no discoverable defects was sufficient to produce the no-defect finding"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: The owner advised Engineer B of his complaint concerning the plumbing and heating systems.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Resolution of the wiring question (no defects found)
  • Owner's continuing dissatisfaction with other building systems
  • Engineer B's ongoing engagement with the owner
Sufficient Factors:
  • The exoneration of the wiring plus the owner's remaining complaints about plumbing and heating was sufficient to shift the owner's focus and prompt the new communication to Engineer B
Counterfactual Test: Had the wiring inspection revealed defects, the owner's attention may have remained on the wiring; the plumbing/heating complaint might still have been raised but the sequence in the facts links it to the completed wiring inspection
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: New owner
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Wiring Inspection Result
    Joint inspection reveals no wiring defects
  2. Owner's Remaining Dissatisfaction
    Owner still has complaints concerning the plumbing and heating systems
  3. Additional Complaint Communication
    Owner advises Engineer B of his complaint concerning the plumbing and heating systems
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Wiring Inspection Result
  • effect: Additional Complaint Communication
  • responsibleAgent: New owner
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: The owner advised Engineer B of his complaint concerning the plumbing and heating systems.
  • necessaryFactors content: Resolution of the wiring question (no defects found); Owner's continuing dissatisfaction with other building systems; Engineer B's ongoing engagement with the owner
  • sufficientFactors content: The exoneration of the wiring plus the owner's remaining complaints about plumbing and heating was sufficient to shift the owner's focus and prompt the new communication to Engineer B
  • counterfactual content: Had the wiring inspection revealed defects, the owner's attention may have remained on the wiring; the plumbing/heating complaint might still have been raised but the sequence in the facts links it to the completed wiring inspection
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew the wiring was cleared but continued to experience problems with hot water and heating
  • interveningFactors content: Underlying performance issues with plumbing and heating systems
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Wiring Inspection Result', 'proeth:description': 'Joint inspection reveals no wiring defects'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': "Owner's Remaining Dissatisfaction", 'proeth:description': 'Owner still has complaints concerning the plumbing and heating systems'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Additional Complaint Communication', 'proeth:description': 'Owner advises Engineer B of his complaint concerning the plumbing and heating systems'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/169#",
    "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/169#CausalChain_5",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T09:05:58.706776+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew the wiring was cleared but continued to experience problems with hot water and heating",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "The owner advised Engineer B of his complaint concerning the plumbing and heating systems.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Joint inspection reveals no wiring defects",
      "proeth:element": "Wiring Inspection Result",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Owner still has complaints concerning the plumbing and heating systems",
      "proeth:element": "Owner\u0027s Remaining Dissatisfaction",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Owner advises Engineer B of his complaint concerning the plumbing and heating systems",
      "proeth:element": "Additional Complaint Communication",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Wiring Inspection Result",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had the wiring inspection revealed defects, the owner\u0027s attention may have remained on the wiring; the plumbing/heating complaint might still have been raised but the sequence in the facts links it to the completed wiring inspection",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Additional Complaint Communication",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Underlying performance issues with plumbing and heating systems"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Resolution of the wiring question (no defects found)",
    "Owner\u0027s continuing dissatisfaction with other building systems",
    "Engineer B\u0027s ongoing engagement with the owner"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "New owner",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The exoneration of the wiring plus the owner\u0027s remaining complaints about plumbing and heating was sufficient to shift the owner\u0027s focus and prompt the new communication to Engineer B"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Owner's complaint about the plumbing and heating systems being communicated to Engineer B
  • Engineer B's professional engagement and willingness to undertake the study
Sufficient Factors:
  • The owner's complaint plus Engineer B's existing retention was sufficient to prompt the further study and report
Counterfactual Test: Without the owner advising Engineer B of the plumbing and heating complaint, Engineer B would have had no basis or mandate for the further study
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Additional Complaint Communication
    Owner advises Engineer B of complaints about plumbing and heating
  2. Further Study
    Engineer B conducts a further study of the plumbing and heating systems
  3. Design Review and Reporting
    Engineer B files a report with the owner on his findings
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Additional Complaint Communication
  • effect: Design Review and Reporting
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer B
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner.
  • necessaryFactors content: Owner's complaint about the plumbing and heating systems being communicated to Engineer B; Engineer B's professional engagement and willingness to undertake the study
  • sufficientFactors content: The owner's complaint plus Engineer B's existing retention was sufficient to prompt the further study and report
  • counterfactual content: Without the owner advising Engineer B of the plumbing and heating complaint, Engineer B would have had no basis or mandate for the further study
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew Engineer A was the original designer and that Engineer A was aware a review of the facility was underway; connection of Engineer A with the work had been terminated years earlier
  • interveningFactors content: Owner's directive to investigate the plumbing and heating complaint
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Additional Complaint Communication', 'proeth:description': 'Owner advises Engineer B of complaints about plumbing and heating'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Further Study', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer B conducts a further study of the plumbing and heating systems'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Design Review and Reporting', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer B files a report with the owner on his findings'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/169#",
    "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/169#CausalChain_6",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T09:05:58.706794+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew Engineer A was the original designer and that Engineer A was aware a review of the facility was underway; connection of Engineer A with the work had been terminated years earlier",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Owner advises Engineer B of complaints about plumbing and heating",
      "proeth:element": "Additional Complaint Communication",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B conducts a further study of the plumbing and heating systems",
      "proeth:element": "Further Study",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B files a report with the owner on his findings",
      "proeth:element": "Design Review and Reporting",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Additional Complaint Communication",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the owner advising Engineer B of the plumbing and heating complaint, Engineer B would have had no basis or mandate for the further study",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Design Review and Reporting",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Owner\u0027s directive to investigate the plumbing and heating complaint"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Owner\u0027s complaint about the plumbing and heating systems being communicated to Engineer B",
    "Engineer B\u0027s professional engagement and willingness to undertake the study"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer B",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The owner\u0027s complaint plus Engineer B\u0027s existing retention was sufficient to prompt the further study and report"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer B's further study of the systems
  • Actual undersizing (as Engineer B assessed it) of the hot water and heating equipment
Sufficient Factors:
  • Engineer B's technical study of equipment sizing against the systems' performance was sufficient to yield the conclusion of design inadequacies
Counterfactual Test: Without Engineer B's study, no professional finding of design inadequacy would have been produced or reported to the owner
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Design Review and Reporting
    Engineer B studies the plumbing and heating systems
  2. Design Inadequacy Finding
    Report concludes plumbing design is sound but equipment for hot water and heating was inadequately sized
  3. Remedial Recommendation
    Engineer B recommends installation of equipment of higher capacity
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Design Review and Reporting
  • effect: Design Inadequacy Finding
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer B
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer B's further study of the systems; Actual undersizing (as Engineer B assessed it) of the hot water and heating equipment
  • sufficientFactors content: Engineer B's technical study of equipment sizing against the systems' performance was sufficient to yield the conclusion of design inadequacies
  • counterfactual content: Without Engineer B's study, no professional finding of design inadequacy would have been produced or reported to the owner
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew the finding implicated Engineer A's original design work; per the discussion, there is no showing he acted with intent to injure Engineer A
  • interveningFactors content: Original equipment sizing decisions made years earlier during design
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Design Review and Reporting', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer B studies the plumbing and heating systems'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Design Inadequacy Finding', 'proeth:description': 'Report concludes plumbing design is sound but equipment for hot water and heating was inadequately sized'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Remedial Recommendation', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer B recommends installation of equipment of higher capacity'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/169#",
    "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/169#CausalChain_7",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T09:05:58.706810+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew the finding implicated Engineer A\u0027s original design work; per the discussion, there is no showing he acted with intent to injure Engineer A",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B studies the plumbing and heating systems",
      "proeth:element": "Design Review and Reporting",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Report concludes plumbing design is sound but equipment for hot water and heating was inadequately sized",
      "proeth:element": "Design Inadequacy Finding",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B recommends installation of equipment of higher capacity",
      "proeth:element": "Remedial Recommendation",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Design Review and Reporting",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without Engineer B\u0027s study, no professional finding of design inadequacy would have been produced or reported to the owner",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Design Inadequacy Finding",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Original equipment sizing decisions made years earlier during design"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer B\u0027s further study of the systems",
    "Actual undersizing (as Engineer B assessed it) of the hot water and heating equipment"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer B",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Engineer B\u0027s technical study of equipment sizing against the systems\u0027 performance was sufficient to yield the conclusion of design inadequacies"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information, and further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer B's report criticizing the original equipment sizing
  • Engineer A's perception that the report was not objective and harmed his reputation
  • Engineer A's decision to escalate to the registration board
Sufficient Factors:
  • The critical finding plus Engineer A's belief that Engineer B's conduct was self-serving and improper was sufficient to motivate the board complaint
Counterfactual Test: Had Engineer B's report found no design inadequacies, Engineer A would have had no basis or motive for filing the complaint
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Design Inadequacy Finding
    Engineer B's report concludes the original hot water and heating equipment was undersized
  2. Engineer A's Perceived Injury
    Engineer A views the report as non-objective, incomplete, and damaging to his dignity and reputation
  3. Registration Board Complaint
    Engineer A files a complaint requesting the board find Engineer B guilty of misconduct
  4. Ethical Question Raised
    A question is raised as to the ethical principles involved; the analysis finds no showing that Engineer B intended to injure Engineer A
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Design Inadequacy Finding
  • effect: Registration Board Complaint
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information, and further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer B's report criticizing the original equipment sizing; Engineer A's perception that the report was not objective and harmed his reputation; Engineer A's decision to escalate to the registration board
  • sufficientFactors content: The critical finding plus Engineer A's belief that Engineer B's conduct was self-serving and improper was sufficient to motivate the board complaint
  • counterfactual content: Had Engineer B's report found no design inadequacies, Engineer A would have had no basis or motive for filing the complaint
  • agentKnowledge content: Knew Engineer B had been retained for the inspection (he had been informed and participated in the joint wiring inspection), yet alleged Engineer B criticized him 'without his knowledge'
  • interveningFactors content: Perceived reputational harm from the report's conclusions
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Design Inadequacy Finding', 'proeth:description': "Engineer B's report concludes the original hot water and heating equipment was undersized"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': "Engineer A's Perceived Injury", 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A views the report as non-objective, incomplete, and damaging to his dignity and reputation'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Registration Board Complaint', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A files a complaint requesting the board find Engineer B guilty of misconduct'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Ethical Question Raised', 'proeth:description': 'A question is raised as to the ethical principles involved; the analysis finds no showing that Engineer B intended to injure Engineer A'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/169#",
    "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/169#CausalChain_8",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "generatedAtTime": "2026-07-12T09:05:58.706827+00:00",
  "proeth:agentKnowledge": "Knew Engineer B had been retained for the inspection (he had been informed and participated in the joint wiring inspection), yet alleged Engineer B criticized him \u0027without his knowledge\u0027",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information, and further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B\u0027s report concludes the original hot water and heating equipment was undersized",
      "proeth:element": "Design Inadequacy Finding",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A views the report as non-objective, incomplete, and damaging to his dignity and reputation",
      "proeth:element": "Engineer A\u0027s Perceived Injury",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A files a complaint requesting the board find Engineer B guilty of misconduct",
      "proeth:element": "Registration Board Complaint",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "A question is raised as to the ethical principles involved; the analysis finds no showing that Engineer B intended to injure Engineer A",
      "proeth:element": "Ethical Question Raised",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Design Inadequacy Finding",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had Engineer B\u0027s report found no design inadequacies, Engineer A would have had no basis or motive for filing the complaint",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Registration Board Complaint",
  "proeth:interveningFactors": [
    "Perceived reputational harm from the report\u0027s conclusions"
  ],
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer B\u0027s report criticizing the original equipment sizing",
    "Engineer A\u0027s perception that the report was not objective and harmed his reputation",
    "Engineer A\u0027s decision to escalate to the registration board"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "The critical finding plus Engineer A\u0027s belief that Engineer B\u0027s conduct was self-serving and improper was sufficient to motivate the board complaint"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}
Allen Temporal Relations (13)
Interval algebra relationships with OWL-Time standard properties
From Entity Allen Relation To Entity OWL-Time Property Evidence
Engineer A's retention by prime professional engineer before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		project completion and occupancy time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer A had been retained by the prime professional engineer... The project was completed and occ... [more]
project completion and occupancy before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		change of facility ownership time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Approximately seven years after the original occupancy, ownership of the facility changed.
Engineer A's full payment for services finishes
Entity1 and Entity2 end at the same time, Entity2 starts first 		Engineer A's connection with the project time:intervalFinishes
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalFinishes 		The project was completed and occupied four years later, and Engineer A was fully paid for his servi... [more]
change of facility ownership before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		new owner retaining Engineer B for inspection time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		ownership of the facility changed. The new owner informed Engineer A he had retained Engineer B to m... [more]
owner informing Engineer A of wiring problems before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		joint inspection of the wiring time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		there were problems associated with the wiring. At the owner's request, a joint inspection of the wi... [more]
joint wiring inspection (Engineer A, Engineer B, city wiring inspector) before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		owner's complaint concerning plumbing and heating systems time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		The inspection did not reveal any defects in the wiring. The owner advised Engineer B of his complai... [more]
owner's plumbing and heating complaint before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer B's further study and report time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		The owner advised Engineer B of his complaint concerning the plumbing and heating systems. Engineer ... [more]
Engineer B's further study meets
Entity1 ends exactly when Entity2 begins 		Engineer B filing report with owner time:intervalMeets
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalMeets 		Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner.
Engineer B's report to owner before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer A's complaint to state registration board time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that ... [more]
termination of Engineer A's connection with the project before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer B's review of the original designs time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		it is equally clear that the connection of Engineer A's with the project had been terminated some ye... [more]
Engineer B's review of original designs during
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2 		Engineer B's engineering inspection/evaluation of the facility time:intervalDuring
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring 		Engineer A knew that Engineer B had been retained to make an engineer's inspection of the facility a... [more]
all case events before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Board's ethical discussion and analysis time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Before turning to a discussion of the ethical principles involved in this situation... Restricting o... [more]
existence of Code Sections 12 and 12(a) before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		publication of the note stating the sections no longer exist time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Note: The following Code sections no longer exist: Code of Ethics - Section 12
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