This page shows the pre-commit working store (the raw extraction under review). This case was committed to OntServe on 2026-07-13 00:01; 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 57: Duty to Report – Material Information

36 entities 4 actions 12 events 10 causal chains 9 temporal relations
Timeline Overview
Action Event 21 sequenced markers
Precedent case BER 07-10, after learning of the barn extension
Extension Approval Issuance After Jones proposed and built the barn extension in BER Case 07-10
Authority Inaction After Engineer A's verbal notification to the town supervisor in BER Case 07-10
Precedent case BER 17-3, after completing structural calculations
Beam Fire Damage Before Engineer A's forensic investigation in BER Case 17-3
Under-Design Determination After Engineer A measured tributary areas and ran structural calculations in BER Case 17-3
Precedent case BER 19-10, upon concluding collapse was a danger
Precedent case BER 19-10, following the preliminary investigation
Building Fire Before Engineer A's investigation in BER Case 19-10
Structural Instability Observation During Engineer A's preliminary investigation in BER Case 19-10
Occupancy Certificate Issuance Following construction modifications, before Engineer A's investigation in BER Case 19-10
Official Non-Response After Engineer A called the county building official in BER Case 19-10
Precedent case BER 98-5, amid budget cuts and new code implementation
Budget-Driven Staff Reduction Before Engineer A's meeting with the city council chairman in BER Case 98-5
New Code Implementation Concurrent with the budget cuts in BER Case 98-5
Inspection Reporting Omission Over at least the past five years
Retrospective Records Review Present, shortly after noticing the unreported defect
Defect Reporting Present, after completing the retrospective review
Material Information Withholding Present, at the same moment as the defect report to Engineer B
Defect Discovery During Engineer Intern A's review of the bridge inspection report
Reporting Pattern Discovery Following the initial defect discovery, during the retrospective records review
OWL-Time Temporal Structure 9 relations time: = w3.org/2006/time
structural changes to the building time:intervalBefore issuance of the certificate of occupancy
budget cuts and staff reductions time:intervalOverlaps implementation of new, more rigid code requirements
inspector's failure to report the defect time:intervalBefore Engineer Intern A's discovery of the defect
Engineer Intern A's discovery of the defect in the inspection report time:intervalBefore Engineer Intern A's review of five years of reports and photographs
Engineer Intern A's retrospective review time:intervalBefore Engineer Intern A's report to Engineer B
existence of the visibly obvious defect time:intervalOverlaps inspector's inspection reports over five years
Engineer Intern A's supervision by Engineer B time:intervalDuring Engineer Intern A's discovery and reporting of the defect
sale of the property to Jones time:intervalBefore Jones's barn extension and removal of columns and footings
buildings under construction time:intervalBefore proposed grandfathering ordinance
Extracted Actions (4)
Volitional professional decisions with intentions and ethical context

Description: An inspector under Engineer Intern A's supervision repeatedly failed to report a visibly obvious defect in a concrete bridge member during successive inspections over at least five years.

Temporal Marker: Over at least the past five years interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Unreported Bridge Defect

Mental State: negligent or unknowing

Intended Outcome: Complete routine inspection reporting

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Undocumented structural defect persisting in official records
Obligation Engagement:
Violates (1)
  • Duty to Report All Material Facts
Required Capabilities:
Bridge inspection Defect identification Accurate reporting
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • violatesObligation: Duty to Report All Material Facts
  • requiresCapability: Bridge inspection; Defect identification; Accurate reporting
  • initiates: Unreported Bridge Defect
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: An inspector under Engineer Intern A's supervision repeatedly failed to report a visibly obvious defect in a concrete bridge member during successive inspections over at least five years.
  • hasAgent content: Inspector
  • temporalMarker content: Over at least the past five years
  • eventRoleContext content: bridge inspector under Engineer Intern A's supervision
  • hasMentalState content: negligent or unknowing
  • intendedOutcome content: Complete routine inspection reporting
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Undocumented structural defect persisting in official records
  • textReferences content: an inspector under the supervision of Engineer Intern A had failed to report a visibly obvious defect in a concrete bridge member; the same inspector had failed to report the same defect for at least five years
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 16
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/57#",
    "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/57#Action_Inspection_Reporting_Omission",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth:description": "An inspector under Engineer Intern A\u0027s supervision repeatedly failed to report a visibly obvious defect in a concrete bridge member during successive inspections over at least five years.",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "bridge inspector under Engineer Intern A\u0027s supervision",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Undocumented structural defect persisting in official records"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Inspector",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "negligent or unknowing",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Unreported Bridge Defect"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Complete routine inspection reporting",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Bridge inspection",
    "Defect identification",
    "Accurate reporting"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Over at least the past five years",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 16,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "an inspector under the supervision of Engineer Intern A had failed to report a visibly obvious defect in a concrete bridge member",
    "the same inspector had failed to report the same defect for at least five years"
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Duty to Report All Material Facts"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Inspection Reporting Omission"
}

Description: After observing the unreported defect, Engineer Intern A deliberately reviewed the inspector's reports and photographs going back five years, discovering the sustained pattern of omission.

Temporal Marker: Present, shortly after noticing the unreported defect interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Five-Year Omission Pattern Known

Mental State: deliberate and concerned

Intended Outcome: Determine whether the defect had been missed in prior inspections

Guided By Principles:
  • Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
Required Capabilities:
Report review Defect identification Engineering judgment
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
  • requiresCapability: Report review; Defect identification; Engineering judgment
  • initiates: Five-Year Omission Pattern Known
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: After observing the unreported defect, Engineer Intern A deliberately reviewed the inspector's reports and photographs going back five years, discovering the sustained pattern of omission.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer Intern A
  • temporalMarker content: Present, shortly after noticing the unreported defect
  • eventRoleContext content: unlicensed engineer in the DOT bridge inspection program
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate and concerned
  • intendedOutcome content: Determine whether the defect had been missed in prior inspections
  • textReferences content: Concerned, Engineer Intern A reviewed the inspector’s reports and photographs going back five years and discovered that the same inspector had failed to report the same defect for at least five years.
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 18
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/57#",
    "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/57#Action_Retrospective_Records_Review",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth:description": "After observing the unreported defect, Engineer Intern A deliberately reviewed the inspector\u0027s reports and photographs going back five years, discovering the sustained pattern of omission.",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "unlicensed engineer in the DOT bridge inspection program",
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Public Health, Safety, and Welfare"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer Intern A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate and concerned",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Five-Year Omission Pattern Known"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Determine whether the defect had been missed in prior inspections",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Report review",
    "Defect identification",
    "Engineering judgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Present, shortly after noticing the unreported defect",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 18,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Concerned, Engineer Intern A reviewed the inspector\u2019s reports and photographs going back five years and discovered that the same inspector had failed to report the same defect for at least five years."
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Retrospective Records Review"
}

Description: Engineer Intern A reported the visibly obvious defect in the concrete bridge member to supervisor Engineer B.

Temporal Marker: Present, after completing the retrospective review instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Defect Disclosed to Supervisor
Terminates (1)
  • Unreported Bridge Defect

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Bring the defect to the attention of the supervising professional engineer

Obligation Engagement:
At stake (1)
  • Duty to Report All Material Facts
Guided By Principles:
  • Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
Required Capabilities:
Defect identification Professional communication
Within Competence: Yes
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • guidedByPrinciple: Public Health, Safety, and Welfare
  • requiresCapability: Defect identification; Professional communication
  • initiates: Defect Disclosed to Supervisor
  • terminates: Unreported Bridge Defect
  • raisesObligation: Duty to Report All Material Facts
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer Intern A reported the visibly obvious defect in the concrete bridge member to supervisor Engineer B.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer Intern A
  • temporalMarker content: Present, after completing the retrospective review
  • eventRoleContext content: unlicensed engineer in the DOT bridge inspection program
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate
  • intendedOutcome content: Bring the defect to the attention of the supervising professional engineer
  • textReferences content: Engineer Intern A reported the defect to Engineer B
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 20
  • withinCompetence assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/57#",
    "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/57#Action_Defect_Reporting",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A reported the visibly obvious defect in the concrete bridge member to supervisor Engineer B.",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "unlicensed engineer in the DOT bridge inspection program",
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Public Health, Safety, and Welfare"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer Intern A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Defect Disclosed to Supervisor"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Bring the defect to the attention of the supervising professional engineer",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [
    "Duty to Report All Material Facts"
  ],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Defect identification",
    "Professional communication"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Present, after completing the retrospective review",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 20,
  "proeth:terminates": [
    "Unreported Bridge Defect"
  ],
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer Intern A reported the defect to Engineer B"
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Defect Reporting"
}

Description: In reporting the defect to Engineer B, Engineer Intern A omitted the material fact that the defect had been visibly obvious and unreported for at least five years.

Temporal Marker: Present, at the same moment as the defect report to Engineer B instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Material Information Withheld

Mental State: deliberate omission

Intended Outcome: Limit the report to the current defect, possibly shielding the subordinate inspector or himself from scrutiny

Foreseen Unintended Effects:

  • Supervisor deprived of information relevant to evaluating the defect and the inspection program
Obligation Engagement:
Violates (1)
  • Duty to Report All Material Facts
Required Capabilities:
Judgment about materiality of safety information
Within Competence: No
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • violatesObligation: Duty to Report All Material Facts
  • requiresCapability: Judgment about materiality of safety information
  • initiates: Material Information Withheld
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: In reporting the defect to Engineer B, Engineer Intern A omitted the material fact that the defect had been visibly obvious and unreported for at least five years.
  • hasAgent content: Engineer Intern A
  • temporalMarker content: Present, at the same moment as the defect report to Engineer B
  • eventRoleContext content: unlicensed engineer in the DOT bridge inspection program
  • hasMentalState content: deliberate omission
  • intendedOutcome content: Limit the report to the current defect, possibly shielding the subordinate inspector or himself from scrutiny
  • foreseenUnintendedEffects content: Supervisor deprived of information relevant to evaluating the defect and the inspection program
  • textReferences content: but did not report the fact that the defect had been visibly obvious for at least five years; Engineer Intern A failed to report the material information that the visibly obvious defect had been missed in inspection for at least five years; Engineer Intern A was not yet qualified to either make that determination or evaluate the materiality of the information
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 21
  • withinCompetence assessment: False
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/57#",
    "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/57#Action_Material_Information_Withholding",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth:description": "In reporting the defect to Engineer B, Engineer Intern A omitted the material fact that the defect had been visibly obvious and unreported for at least five years.",
  "proeth:eventRoleContext": "unlicensed engineer in the DOT bridge inspection program",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Supervisor deprived of information relevant to evaluating the defect and the inspection program"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer Intern A",
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate omission",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Material Information Withheld"
  ],
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Limit the report to the current defect, possibly shielding the subordinate inspector or himself from scrutiny",
  "proeth:raisesObligation": [],
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Judgment about materiality of safety information"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Present, at the same moment as the defect report to Engineer B",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 21,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "but did not report the fact that the defect had been visibly obvious for at least five years",
    "Engineer Intern A failed to report the material information that the visibly obvious defect had been missed in inspection for at least five years",
    "Engineer Intern A was not yet qualified to either make that determination or evaluate the materiality of the information"
  ],
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Duty to Report All Material Facts"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": false,
  "rdfs:label": "Material Information Withholding"
}
Extracted Events (12)
Occurrences that trigger ethical considerations and state changes

Description: In BER Case 98-5, the City's building inspection program experienced reductions in staff due to budget cuts, straining the inspection program.

Temporal Marker: Before Engineer A's meeting with the city council chairman in BER Case 98-5 interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Inspection Staffing Shortage
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Inspection Staffing Shortage
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: In BER Case 98-5, the City's building inspection program experienced reductions in staff due to budget cuts, straining the inspection program.
  • temporalMarker content: Before Engineer A's meeting with the city council chairman in BER Case 98-5
  • textReferences content: was pressed between reductions in staff due to budget cuts and implementation of new, more rigid code requirements which greatly enhanced and protected the public’s health and safety
  • eventType content: exogenous
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 1
  • confidence assessment: 0.82
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/57#",
    "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/57#Event_Budget-Driven_Staff_Reduction",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.82",
  "proeth:description": "In BER Case 98-5, the City\u0027s building inspection program experienced reductions in staff due to budget cuts, straining the inspection program.",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Inspection Staffing Shortage"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Before Engineer A\u0027s meeting with the city council chairman in BER Case 98-5",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 1,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "was pressed between reductions in staff due to budget cuts and implementation of new, more rigid code requirements which greatly enhanced and protected the public\u2019s health and safety"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Budget-Driven Staff Reduction"
}

Description: In BER Case 98-5, new, more rigid code requirements were implemented, which greatly enhanced and protected the public's health and safety while increasing inspection demands.

Temporal Marker: Concurrent with the budget cuts in BER Case 98-5 interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Heightened Code Requirements
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Heightened Code Requirements
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: In BER Case 98-5, new, more rigid code requirements were implemented, which greatly enhanced and protected the public's health and safety while increasing inspection demands.
  • temporalMarker content: Concurrent with the budget cuts in BER Case 98-5
  • textReferences content: implementation of new, more rigid code requirements which greatly enhanced and protected the public’s health and safety
  • eventType content: exogenous
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 2
  • confidence assessment: 0.8
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/57#",
    "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/57#Event_New_Code_Implementation",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.8",
  "proeth:description": "In BER Case 98-5, new, more rigid code requirements were implemented, which greatly enhanced and protected the public\u0027s health and safety while increasing inspection demands.",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Heightened Code Requirements"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Concurrent with the budget cuts in BER Case 98-5",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 2,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "implementation of new, more rigid code requirements which greatly enhanced and protected the public\u2019s health and safety"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "New Code Implementation"
}

Description: In BER Case 07-10, the town approved the barn extension changes, the extension was built, and a certificate of occupancy was issued, despite removal of supporting columns and footings.

Temporal Marker: After Jones proposed and built the barn extension in BER Case 07-10 instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Approved Modified Structure
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Approved Modified Structure
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: In BER Case 07-10, the town approved the barn extension changes, the extension was built, and a certificate of occupancy was issued, despite removal of supporting columns and footings.
  • temporalMarker content: After Jones proposed and built the barn extension in BER Case 07-10
  • textReferences content: The changes were approved by the town, the extension was built, and a certificate of occupancy was issued.
  • eventType content: exogenous
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 4
  • confidence assessment: 0.82
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/57#",
    "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/57#Event_Extension_Approval_Issuance",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.82",
  "proeth:description": "In BER Case 07-10, the town approved the barn extension changes, the extension was built, and a certificate of occupancy was issued, despite removal of supporting columns and footings.",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Approved Modified Structure"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After Jones proposed and built the barn extension in BER Case 07-10",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 4,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "The changes were approved by the town, the extension was built, and a certificate of occupancy was issued."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Extension Approval Issuance"
}

Description: In BER Case 07-10, after the town supervisor agreed to review Engineer A's concern about possible collapse under severe snow loads, no action was taken by the town.

Temporal Marker: After Engineer A's verbal notification to the town supervisor in BER Case 07-10 interval

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Unaddressed Structural Deficiency

Caused By Action: Action_Verbal_Authority_Notification

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/57#Action_Verbal_Authority_Notification
  • initiates: Unaddressed Structural Deficiency
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: In BER Case 07-10, after the town supervisor agreed to review Engineer A's concern about possible collapse under severe snow loads, no action was taken by the town.
  • temporalMarker content: After Engineer A's verbal notification to the town supervisor in BER Case 07-10
  • textReferences content: Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor, who agreed to review the matter, but no action was taken.
  • eventType content: exogenous
  • temporalExtent content: interval
  • temporalSequence content: 6
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/57#",
    "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/57#Event_Authority_Inaction",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/57#Action_Verbal_Authority_Notification",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.85",
  "proeth:description": "In BER Case 07-10, after the town supervisor agreed to review Engineer A\u0027s concern about possible collapse under severe snow loads, no action was taken by the town.",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Unaddressed Structural Deficiency"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "interval",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After Engineer A\u0027s verbal notification to the town supervisor in BER Case 07-10",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 6,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor, who agreed to review the matter, but no action was taken."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Authority Inaction"
}

Description: In BER Case 17-3, a beam in a residence under construction was burned, prompting the insurance company to ask Engineer A to examine it.

Temporal Marker: Before Engineer A's forensic investigation in BER Case 17-3 instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Fire Damaged Structural Member
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Fire Damaged Structural Member
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: In BER Case 17-3, a beam in a residence under construction was burned, prompting the insurance company to ask Engineer A to examine it.
  • temporalMarker content: Before Engineer A's forensic investigation in BER Case 17-3
  • textReferences content: Engineer A was asked to look at a beam in a residence under construction that had been burned.
  • eventType content: exogenous
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 7
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/57#",
    "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/57#Event_Beam_Fire_Damage",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.85",
  "proeth:description": "In BER Case 17-3, a beam in a residence under construction was burned, prompting the insurance company to ask Engineer A to examine it.",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Fire Damaged Structural Member"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Before Engineer A\u0027s forensic investigation in BER Case 17-3",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 7,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A was asked to look at a beam in a residence under construction that had been burned."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Beam Fire Damage"
}

Description: In BER Case 17-3, Engineer A's structural calculations revealed that the beam was seriously under-designed, and Engineer A also observed that identical designs existed in other tract houses in the subdivision.

Temporal Marker: After Engineer A measured tributary areas and ran structural calculations in BER Case 17-3 instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Known Design Defect
  • Wider Subdivision Risk
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Known Design Defect; Wider Subdivision Risk
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: In BER Case 17-3, Engineer A's structural calculations revealed that the beam was seriously under-designed, and Engineer A also observed that identical designs existed in other tract houses in the subdivision.
  • temporalMarker content: After Engineer A measured tributary areas and ran structural calculations in BER Case 17-3
  • textReferences content: Based upon the review, Engineer A determined that the beam was seriously under-designed.; since the residence was a tract residence, there were other identical designs in the subdivision
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 8
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/57#",
    "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/57#Event_Under-Design_Determination",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.85",
  "proeth:description": "In BER Case 17-3, Engineer A\u0027s structural calculations revealed that the beam was seriously under-designed, and Engineer A also observed that identical designs existed in other tract houses in the subdivision.",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Known Design Defect",
    "Wider Subdivision Risk"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After Engineer A measured tributary areas and ran structural calculations in BER Case 17-3",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 8,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Based upon the review, Engineer A determined that the beam was seriously under-designed.",
    "since the residence was a tract residence, there were other identical designs in the subdivision"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Under-Design Determination"
}

Description: In BER Case 19-10, following construction modifications the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county building official despite the structural changes.

Temporal Marker: Following construction modifications, before Engineer A's investigation in BER Case 19-10 instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Certified Occupancy Status
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Certified Occupancy Status
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: In BER Case 19-10, following construction modifications the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county building official despite the structural changes.
  • temporalMarker content: Following construction modifications, before Engineer A's investigation in BER Case 19-10
  • textReferences content: following construction modifications, the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county building official
  • eventType content: exogenous
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 10
  • confidence assessment: 0.82
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/57#",
    "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/57#Event_Occupancy_Certificate_Issuance",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.82",
  "proeth:description": "In BER Case 19-10, following construction modifications the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county building official despite the structural changes.",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Certified Occupancy Status"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Following construction modifications, before Engineer A\u0027s investigation in BER Case 19-10",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 10,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "following construction modifications, the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county building official"
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Occupancy Certificate Issuance"
}

Description: In BER Case 19-10, a fire occurred at a building, resulting in financial loss and prompting Client B to retain Engineer A for an origin and cause investigation.

Temporal Marker: Before Engineer A's investigation in BER Case 19-10 instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Fire Damage Condition
  • Financial Loss
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Fire Damage Condition; Financial Loss
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: In BER Case 19-10, a fire occurred at a building, resulting in financial loss and prompting Client B to retain Engineer A for an origin and cause investigation.
  • temporalMarker content: Before Engineer A's investigation in BER Case 19-10
  • textReferences content: Engineer A was hired by Client B to conduct a building investigation to determine the origin and cause of a fire resulting in financial loss.
  • eventType content: exogenous
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 11
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/57#",
    "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/57#Event_Building_Fire",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.85",
  "proeth:description": "In BER Case 19-10, a fire occurred at a building, resulting in financial loss and prompting Client B to retain Engineer A for an origin and cause investigation.",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Fire Damage Condition",
    "Financial Loss"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Before Engineer A\u0027s investigation in BER Case 19-10",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 11,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A was hired by Client B to conduct a building investigation to determine the origin and cause of a fire resulting in financial loss."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Building Fire"
}

Description: In BER Case 19-10, during the investigation Engineer A observed the building to be structurally unstable, with a sagging roof and outward-leaning walls attributed to recent structural changes.

Temporal Marker: During Engineer A's preliminary investigation in BER Case 19-10 instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Building Collapse Danger
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Building Collapse Danger
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: In BER Case 19-10, during the investigation Engineer A observed the building to be structurally unstable, with a sagging roof and outward-leaning walls attributed to recent structural changes.
  • temporalMarker content: During Engineer A's preliminary investigation in BER Case 19-10
  • textReferences content: Engineer A observed the building to be structurally unstable.; Although not imminent, Engineer A believed collapse of the building was a danger.
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 12
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/57#",
    "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/57#Event_Structural_Instability_Observation",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.85",
  "proeth:description": "In BER Case 19-10, during the investigation Engineer A observed the building to be structurally unstable, with a sagging roof and outward-leaning walls attributed to recent structural changes.",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Building Collapse Danger"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During Engineer A\u0027s preliminary investigation in BER Case 19-10",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 12,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer A observed the building to be structurally unstable.",
    "Although not imminent, Engineer A believed collapse of the building was a danger."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Structural Instability Observation"
}

Description: In BER Case 19-10, the county building official did not return Engineer A's phone call after Engineer A raised the structural concern.

Temporal Marker: After Engineer A called the county building official in BER Case 19-10 instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Unresolved Safety Concern
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Unresolved Safety Concern
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: In BER Case 19-10, the county building official did not return Engineer A's phone call after Engineer A raised the structural concern.
  • temporalMarker content: After Engineer A called the county building official in BER Case 19-10
  • textReferences content: The county building official did not return Engineer A’s phone call.
  • eventType content: exogenous
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 15
  • confidence assessment: 0.85
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/57#",
    "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/57#Event_Official_Non-Response",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.85",
  "proeth:description": "In BER Case 19-10, the county building official did not return Engineer A\u0027s phone call after Engineer A raised the structural concern.",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Unresolved Safety Concern"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After Engineer A called the county building official in BER Case 19-10",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 15,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "The county building official did not return Engineer A\u2019s phone call."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Official Non-Response"
}

Description: While reviewing an inspection report, Engineer Intern A observed a visibly obvious defect in a concrete bridge member that the inspector had failed to report.

Temporal Marker: During Engineer Intern A's review of the bridge inspection report instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (2)
  • Known Bridge Defect
  • Public Safety Concern
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • initiates: Known Bridge Defect; Public Safety Concern
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: While reviewing an inspection report, Engineer Intern A observed a visibly obvious defect in a concrete bridge member that the inspector had failed to report.
  • temporalMarker content: During Engineer Intern A's review of the bridge inspection report
  • textReferences content: While reviewing the inspection report for a bridge, Engineer Intern A observed that an inspector under the supervision of Engineer Intern A had failed to report a visibly obvious defect in a concrete bridge member.
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 17
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/57#",
    "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/57#Event_Defect_Discovery",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.92",
  "proeth:description": "While reviewing an inspection report, Engineer Intern A observed a visibly obvious defect in a concrete bridge member that the inspector had failed to report.",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Known Bridge Defect",
    "Public Safety Concern"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During Engineer Intern A\u0027s review of the bridge inspection report",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 17,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "While reviewing the inspection report for a bridge, Engineer Intern A observed that an inspector under the supervision of Engineer Intern A had failed to report a visibly obvious defect in a concrete bridge member."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Defect Discovery"
}

Description: Engineer Intern A's retrospective review of five years of the inspector's reports and photographs revealed that the same defect had gone unreported for at least five years.

Temporal Marker: Following the initial defect discovery, during the retrospective records review instant

Fluent Transitions:
Initiates (1)
  • Known Five-Year Reporting Failure

Caused By Action: Action_Retrospective_Records_Review

Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • causedByAction: http://proethica.org/ontology/case/57#Action_Retrospective_Records_Review
  • initiates: Known Five-Year Reporting Failure
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • description content: Engineer Intern A's retrospective review of five years of the inspector's reports and photographs revealed that the same defect had gone unreported for at least five years.
  • temporalMarker content: Following the initial defect discovery, during the retrospective records review
  • textReferences content: Engineer Intern A reviewed the inspector’s reports and photographs going back five years and discovered that the same inspector had failed to report the same defect for at least five years.
  • eventType content: outcome
  • temporalExtent content: instant
  • temporalSequence content: 19
  • confidence assessment: 0.92
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/57#",
    "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/57#Event_Reporting_Pattern_Discovery",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/57#Action_Retrospective_Records_Review",
  "proeth:confidence": "0.92",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A\u0027s retrospective review of five years of the inspector\u0027s reports and photographs revealed that the same defect had gone unreported for at least five years.",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:initiates": [
    "Known Five-Year Reporting Failure"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalExtent": "instant",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Following the initial defect discovery, during the retrospective records review",
  "proeth:temporalSequence": 19,
  "proeth:textReferences": [
    "Engineer Intern A reviewed the inspector\u2019s reports and photographs going back five years and discovered that the same inspector had failed to report the same defect for at least five years."
  ],
  "rdfs:label": "Reporting Pattern Discovery"
}
Causal Chains (10)
NESS test analysis: Necessary Element of Sufficient Set

Causal Language: While reviewing the inspection report for a bridge, Engineer Intern A observed that an inspector under the supervision of Engineer Intern A had failed to report a visibly obvious defect in a concrete bridge member.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Inspector's repeated failure to report the visibly obvious defect
  • Defect being visibly obvious in the concrete bridge member
  • Engineer Intern A reviewing the inspection report
Sufficient Factors:
  • Combination of an unreported visibly obvious defect + Engineer Intern A's review of the inspection report
Counterfactual Test: If the inspector had reported the defect properly, there would have been no reporting omission for Engineer Intern A to discover; the discovery of an omission would not have occurred.
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Inspector under Engineer Intern A's supervision
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Inspection Reporting Omission
    Inspector fails to report a visibly obvious defect in a concrete bridge member
  2. Report Contains No Defect Entry
    The inspection report reviewed by Engineer Intern A lacks the defect information
  3. Defect Discovery
    Engineer Intern A observes the visibly obvious defect while reviewing the inspection report
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Inspection Reporting Omission
  • effect: Defect Discovery
  • responsibleAgent: Inspector under Engineer Intern A's supervision
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: While reviewing the inspection report for a bridge, Engineer Intern A observed that an inspector under the supervision of Engineer Intern A had failed to report a visibly obvious defect in a concrete bridge member.
  • necessaryFactors content: Inspector's repeated failure to report the visibly obvious defect; Defect being visibly obvious in the concrete bridge member; Engineer Intern A reviewing the inspection report
  • sufficientFactors content: Combination of an unreported visibly obvious defect + Engineer Intern A's review of the inspection report
  • counterfactual content: If the inspector had reported the defect properly, there would have been no reporting omission for Engineer Intern A to discover; the discovery of an omission would not have occurred.
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Inspection Reporting Omission', 'proeth:description': 'Inspector fails to report a visibly obvious defect in a concrete bridge member'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Report Contains No Defect Entry', 'proeth:description': 'The inspection report reviewed by Engineer Intern A lacks the defect information'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Defect Discovery', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer Intern A observes the visibly obvious defect while reviewing the inspection report'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/57#",
    "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/57#CausalChain_1",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "While reviewing the inspection report for a bridge, Engineer Intern A observed that an inspector under the supervision of Engineer Intern A had failed to report a visibly obvious defect in a concrete bridge member.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Inspector fails to report a visibly obvious defect in a concrete bridge member",
      "proeth:element": "Inspection Reporting Omission",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The inspection report reviewed by Engineer Intern A lacks the defect information",
      "proeth:element": "Report Contains No Defect Entry",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A observes the visibly obvious defect while reviewing the inspection report",
      "proeth:element": "Defect Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Inspection Reporting Omission",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "If the inspector had reported the defect properly, there would have been no reporting omission for Engineer Intern A to discover; the discovery of an omission would not have occurred.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Defect Discovery",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Inspector\u0027s repeated failure to report the visibly obvious defect",
    "Defect being visibly obvious in the concrete bridge member",
    "Engineer Intern A reviewing the inspection report"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Inspector under Engineer Intern A\u0027s supervision",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of an unreported visibly obvious defect + Engineer Intern A\u0027s review of the inspection report"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Concerned, Engineer Intern A reviewed the inspector’s reports and photographs going back five years and discovered that the same inspector had failed to report the same defect for at least five years.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer Intern A's observation of the unreported defect
  • Engineer Intern A's concern about the inspector's reliability
  • Access to five years of the inspector's reports and photographs
Sufficient Factors:
  • Discovery of the unreported visibly obvious defect + Engineer Intern A's concern and access to historical records
Counterfactual Test: Without observing the unreported defect, Engineer Intern A would have had no reason to review five years of the inspector's records.
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Defect Discovery
    Engineer Intern A observes the visibly obvious defect while reviewing an inspection report
  2. Concern About Inspection Quality
    Engineer Intern A becomes concerned about the inspector's performance
  3. Retrospective Records Review
    Engineer Intern A deliberately reviews five years of reports and photographs
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Defect Discovery
  • effect: Retrospective Records Review
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer Intern A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Concerned, Engineer Intern A reviewed the inspector’s reports and photographs going back five years and discovered that the same inspector had failed to report the same defect for at least five years.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer Intern A's observation of the unreported defect; Engineer Intern A's concern about the inspector's reliability; Access to five years of the inspector's reports and photographs
  • sufficientFactors content: Discovery of the unreported visibly obvious defect + Engineer Intern A's concern and access to historical records
  • counterfactual content: Without observing the unreported defect, Engineer Intern A would have had no reason to review five years of the inspector's records.
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Defect Discovery', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer Intern A observes the visibly obvious defect while reviewing an inspection report'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Concern About Inspection Quality', 'proeth:description': "Engineer Intern A becomes concerned about the inspector's performance"}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Retrospective Records Review', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer Intern A deliberately reviews five years of reports and photographs'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/57#",
    "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/57#CausalChain_2",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Concerned, Engineer Intern A reviewed the inspector\u2019s reports and photographs going back five years and discovered that the same inspector had failed to report the same defect for at least five years.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A observes the visibly obvious defect while reviewing an inspection report",
      "proeth:element": "Defect Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A becomes concerned about the inspector\u0027s performance",
      "proeth:element": "Concern About Inspection Quality",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A deliberately reviews five years of reports and photographs",
      "proeth:element": "Retrospective Records Review",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Defect Discovery",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without observing the unreported defect, Engineer Intern A would have had no reason to review five years of the inspector\u0027s records.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Retrospective Records Review",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer Intern A\u0027s observation of the unreported defect",
    "Engineer Intern A\u0027s concern about the inspector\u0027s reliability",
    "Access to five years of the inspector\u0027s reports and photographs"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer Intern A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Discovery of the unreported visibly obvious defect + Engineer Intern A\u0027s concern and access to historical records"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer Intern A reviewed the inspector’s reports and photographs going back five years and discovered that the same inspector had failed to report the same defect for at least five years.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Deliberate review of five years of reports and photographs
  • Existence of a five-year pattern of unreported defects in the records
  • Photographic evidence showing the defect was visibly obvious over time
Sufficient Factors:
  • Retrospective review + records containing evidence of the repeated omission
Counterfactual Test: Without the retrospective review, the five-year pattern of omission would have remained undiscovered; only the current omission would be known.
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Retrospective Records Review
    Engineer Intern A reviews five years of the inspector's reports and photographs
  2. Reporting Pattern Discovery
    Review reveals the same defect went unreported for at least five years
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Retrospective Records Review
  • effect: Reporting Pattern Discovery
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer Intern A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer Intern A reviewed the inspector’s reports and photographs going back five years and discovered that the same inspector had failed to report the same defect for at least five years.
  • necessaryFactors content: Deliberate review of five years of reports and photographs; Existence of a five-year pattern of unreported defects in the records; Photographic evidence showing the defect was visibly obvious over time
  • sufficientFactors content: Retrospective review + records containing evidence of the repeated omission
  • counterfactual content: Without the retrospective review, the five-year pattern of omission would have remained undiscovered; only the current omission would be known.
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Retrospective Records Review', 'proeth:description': "Engineer Intern A reviews five years of the inspector's reports and photographs"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Reporting Pattern Discovery', 'proeth:description': 'Review reveals the same defect went unreported for at least five years'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/57#",
    "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/57#CausalChain_3",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer Intern A reviewed the inspector\u2019s reports and photographs going back five years and discovered that the same inspector had failed to report the same defect for at least five years.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A reviews five years of the inspector\u0027s reports and photographs",
      "proeth:element": "Retrospective Records Review",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Review reveals the same defect went unreported for at least five years",
      "proeth:element": "Reporting Pattern Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 2
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Retrospective Records Review",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the retrospective review, the five-year pattern of omission would have remained undiscovered; only the current omission would be known.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Reporting Pattern Discovery",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Deliberate review of five years of reports and photographs",
    "Existence of a five-year pattern of unreported defects in the records",
    "Photographic evidence showing the defect was visibly obvious over time"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer Intern A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Retrospective review + records containing evidence of the repeated omission"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer Intern A reported the defect to Engineer B but did not report the fact that the defect had been visibly obvious for at least five years.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer Intern A's knowledge of the defect
  • Existing supervisory reporting relationship with Engineer B
  • Engineer Intern A's decision to escalate the safety concern
Sufficient Factors:
  • Knowledge of the defect + supervisory channel + Engineer Intern A's choice to report
Counterfactual Test: Without discovering the defect, Engineer Intern A would have had nothing to report to Engineer B.
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Defect Discovery
    Engineer Intern A observes the visibly obvious defect
  2. Defect Reporting
    Engineer Intern A reports the defect to supervisor Engineer B
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Defect Discovery
  • effect: Defect Reporting
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer Intern A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer Intern A reported the defect to Engineer B but did not report the fact that the defect had been visibly obvious for at least five years.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer Intern A's knowledge of the defect; Existing supervisory reporting relationship with Engineer B; Engineer Intern A's decision to escalate the safety concern
  • sufficientFactors content: Knowledge of the defect + supervisory channel + Engineer Intern A's choice to report
  • counterfactual content: Without discovering the defect, Engineer Intern A would have had nothing to report to Engineer B.
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Defect Discovery', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer Intern A observes the visibly obvious defect'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Defect Reporting', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer Intern A reports the defect to supervisor Engineer B'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/57#",
    "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/57#CausalChain_4",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer Intern A reported the defect to Engineer B but did not report the fact that the defect had been visibly obvious for at least five years.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A observes the visibly obvious defect",
      "proeth:element": "Defect Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A reports the defect to supervisor Engineer B",
      "proeth:element": "Defect Reporting",
      "proeth:step": 2
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Defect Discovery",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without discovering the defect, Engineer Intern A would have had nothing to report to Engineer B.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "facts",
  "proeth:effect": "Defect Reporting",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer Intern A\u0027s knowledge of the defect",
    "Existing supervisory reporting relationship with Engineer B",
    "Engineer Intern A\u0027s decision to escalate the safety concern"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer Intern A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Knowledge of the defect + supervisory channel + Engineer Intern A\u0027s choice to report"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: In the present case, Engineer Intern A failed to report the material information that the visibly obvious defect had been missed in inspection for at least five years.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer Intern A's possession of the five-year omission information
  • Engineer Intern A's decision not to disclose it when reporting the defect
  • Engineer Intern A's implicit judgment about the materiality or relevance of the information
Sufficient Factors:
  • Possession of the material fact + volitional choice to omit it from the report to Engineer B
Counterfactual Test: Without discovering the five-year pattern, there would be no material information to withhold; conversely, had Engineer Intern A chosen full disclosure, the withholding would not have occurred despite the discovery.
Responsibility Attribution:

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

Causal Sequence:
  1. Reporting Pattern Discovery
    Engineer Intern A learns the defect went unreported for at least five years
  2. Materiality Judgment by Intern
    Engineer Intern A implicitly decides what information is worth conveying, despite not being qualified to evaluate materiality
  3. Material Information Withholding
    Engineer Intern A reports the defect but omits the five-year history
  4. Incomplete Basis for Supervisory Decision
    Engineer B lacks material facts that could affect the urgency and scope of any investigation
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Reporting Pattern Discovery
  • effect: Material Information Withholding
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer Intern A
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: In the present case, Engineer Intern A failed to report the material information that the visibly obvious defect had been missed in inspection for at least five years.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer Intern A's possession of the five-year omission information; Engineer Intern A's decision not to disclose it when reporting the defect; Engineer Intern A's implicit judgment about the materiality or relevance of the information
  • sufficientFactors content: Possession of the material fact + volitional choice to omit it from the report to Engineer B
  • counterfactual content: Without discovering the five-year pattern, there would be no material information to withhold; conversely, had Engineer Intern A chosen full disclosure, the withholding would not have occurred despite the discovery.
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Reporting Pattern Discovery', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer Intern A learns the defect went unreported for at least five years'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Materiality Judgment by Intern', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer Intern A implicitly decides what information is worth conveying, despite not being qualified to evaluate materiality'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Material Information Withholding', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer Intern A reports the defect but omits the five-year history'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Incomplete Basis for Supervisory Decision', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer B lacks material facts that could affect the urgency and scope of any investigation'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/57#",
    "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/57#CausalChain_5",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "In the present case, Engineer Intern A failed to report the material information that the visibly obvious defect had been missed in inspection for at least five years.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A learns the defect went unreported for at least five years",
      "proeth:element": "Reporting Pattern Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A implicitly decides what information is worth conveying, despite not being qualified to evaluate materiality",
      "proeth:element": "Materiality Judgment by Intern",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer Intern A reports the defect but omits the five-year history",
      "proeth:element": "Material Information Withholding",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B lacks material facts that could affect the urgency and scope of any investigation",
      "proeth:element": "Incomplete Basis for Supervisory Decision",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Reporting Pattern Discovery",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without discovering the five-year pattern, there would be no material information to withhold; conversely, had Engineer Intern A chosen full disclosure, the withholding would not have occurred despite the discovery.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Material Information Withholding",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer Intern A\u0027s possession of the five-year omission information",
    "Engineer Intern A\u0027s decision not to disclose it when reporting the defect",
    "Engineer Intern A\u0027s implicit judgment about the materiality or relevance of the information"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer Intern A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Possession of the material fact + volitional choice to omit it from the report to Engineer B"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Although not imminent, Engineer A believed collapse of the building was a danger. Engineer A immediately advised Client B and called the county building official.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Engineer A's observation that the building was structurally unstable
  • Engineer A's professional judgment that collapse was a danger
  • Engineer A's engagement to investigate the building
Sufficient Factors:
  • Observation of instability + professional belief of collapse danger + Engineer A's commitment to public safety obligations
Counterfactual Test: Without observing the structural instability, Engineer A would have had no basis or motive to advise Client B or call the county building official.
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A (BER Case 19-10)
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Building Fire
    Fire causes financial loss and prompts Client B to hire Engineer A
  2. Structural Instability Observation
    Engineer A observes the building is structurally unstable during the investigation
  3. Hazard Advisory
    Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official
  4. Official Non-Response
    The county building official does not return Engineer A's phone call
  5. Board-Identified Continuing Obligation
    Board holds Engineer A must continue pursuing resolution with the official's supervisor, fire marshal, or other agency
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Structural Instability Observation
  • effect: Hazard Advisory
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A (BER Case 19-10)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Although not imminent, Engineer A believed collapse of the building was a danger. Engineer A immediately advised Client B and called the county building official.
  • necessaryFactors content: Engineer A's observation that the building was structurally unstable; Engineer A's professional judgment that collapse was a danger; Engineer A's engagement to investigate the building
  • sufficientFactors content: Observation of instability + professional belief of collapse danger + Engineer A's commitment to public safety obligations
  • counterfactual content: Without observing the structural instability, Engineer A would have had no basis or motive to advise Client B or call the county building official.
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Building Fire', 'proeth:description': 'Fire causes financial loss and prompts Client B to hire Engineer A'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Structural Instability Observation', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A observes the building is structurally unstable during the investigation'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Hazard Advisory', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Official Non-Response', 'proeth:description': "The county building official does not return Engineer A's phone call"}; {'proeth:step': 5, 'proeth:element': 'Board-Identified Continuing Obligation', 'proeth:description': "Board holds Engineer A must continue pursuing resolution with the official's supervisor, fire marshal, or other agency"}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/57#",
    "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/57#CausalChain_6",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Although not imminent, Engineer A believed collapse of the building was a danger. Engineer A immediately advised Client B and called the county building official.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Fire causes financial loss and prompts Client B to hire Engineer A",
      "proeth:element": "Building Fire",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A observes the building is structurally unstable during the investigation",
      "proeth:element": "Structural Instability Observation",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A immediately advises Client B and calls the county building official",
      "proeth:element": "Hazard Advisory",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The county building official does not return Engineer A\u0027s phone call",
      "proeth:element": "Official Non-Response",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Board holds Engineer A must continue pursuing resolution with the official\u0027s supervisor, fire marshal, or other agency",
      "proeth:element": "Board-Identified Continuing Obligation",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Structural Instability Observation",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without observing the structural instability, Engineer A would have had no basis or motive to advise Client B or call the county building official.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Hazard Advisory",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s observation that the building was structurally unstable",
    "Engineer A\u0027s professional judgment that collapse was a danger",
    "Engineer A\u0027s engagement to investigate the building"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A (BER Case 19-10)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Observation of instability + professional belief of collapse danger + Engineer A\u0027s commitment to public safety obligations"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer A learned of the extension and was concerned that the modified structure could be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads. Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor, who agreed to review the matter, but no action was taken.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Jones's removal of portions of the columns and footings supporting the roof
  • Town approval, construction of the extension, and issuance of a certificate of occupancy
  • Engineer A learning of the extension and judging collapse risk under severe snow loads
Sufficient Factors:
  • Approved and built structurally compromised extension + Engineer A's knowledge of the original design and concern about collapse
Counterfactual Test: Had the extension not been approved and built, there would have been no collapse concern for Engineer A to report to the town supervisor.
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A (BER Case 07-10)
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Extension Approval Issuance
    Town approves the changes, the extension is built, and a certificate of occupancy is issued
  2. Engineer A Learns of Extension
    Engineer A becomes concerned the modified structure could collapse under severe snow loads
  3. Verbal Authority Notification
    Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor
  4. Authority Inaction
    The town supervisor agrees to review the matter but takes no action
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Extension Approval Issuance
  • effect: Verbal Authority Notification
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A (BER Case 07-10)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A learned of the extension and was concerned that the modified structure could be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads. Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor, who agreed to review the matter, but no action was taken.
  • necessaryFactors content: Jones's removal of portions of the columns and footings supporting the roof; Town approval, construction of the extension, and issuance of a certificate of occupancy; Engineer A learning of the extension and judging collapse risk under severe snow loads
  • sufficientFactors content: Approved and built structurally compromised extension + Engineer A's knowledge of the original design and concern about collapse
  • counterfactual content: Had the extension not been approved and built, there would have been no collapse concern for Engineer A to report to the town supervisor.
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Extension Approval Issuance', 'proeth:description': 'Town approves the changes, the extension is built, and a certificate of occupancy is issued'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Engineer A Learns of Extension', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A becomes concerned the modified structure could collapse under severe snow loads'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Verbal Authority Notification', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Authority Inaction', 'proeth:description': 'The town supervisor agrees to review the matter but takes no action'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/57#",
    "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/57#CausalChain_7",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A learned of the extension and was concerned that the modified structure could be in danger of collapse due to severe snow loads. Engineer A verbally contacted the town supervisor, who agreed to review the matter, but no action was taken.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Town approves the changes, the extension is built, and a certificate of occupancy is issued",
      "proeth:element": "Extension Approval Issuance",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A becomes concerned the modified structure could collapse under severe snow loads",
      "proeth:element": "Engineer A Learns of Extension",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A verbally contacts the town supervisor",
      "proeth:element": "Verbal Authority Notification",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "The town supervisor agrees to review the matter but takes no action",
      "proeth:element": "Authority Inaction",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Extension Approval Issuance",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Had the extension not been approved and built, there would have been no collapse concern for Engineer A to report to the town supervisor.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Verbal Authority Notification",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Jones\u0027s removal of portions of the columns and footings supporting the roof",
    "Town approval, construction of the extension, and issuance of a certificate of occupancy",
    "Engineer A learning of the extension and judging collapse risk under severe snow loads"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A (BER Case 07-10)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Approved and built structurally compromised extension + Engineer A\u0027s knowledge of the original design and concern about collapse"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer A measured the tributary area of the roof, floor, and wall bearing on the beam and ran a series of structural calculations. Based upon the review, Engineer A determined that the beam was seriously under-designed.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • The fire damage that prompted the insurance investigation
  • Engineer A's examination of the beam and observation that it appeared too light
  • Engineer A's structural calculations on the tributary area
Sufficient Factors:
  • Fire-prompted forensic engagement + Engineer A's structural analysis of the beam
Counterfactual Test: Without the beam fire damage, the insurance investigation would not have occurred and the pre-existing under-design would likely have gone undetected.
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A (BER Case 17-3)
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Beam Fire Damage
    A beam in a residence under construction is burned, prompting the insurance company's request
  2. Forensic Examination
    Engineer A examines the beam and finds it appears too light for adequate structural support
  3. Structural Calculations
    Engineer A measures the tributary area and runs a series of structural calculations
  4. Under-Design Determination
    Engineer A determines the beam is seriously under-designed
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Beam Fire Damage
  • effect: Under-Design Determination
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A (BER Case 17-3)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A measured the tributary area of the roof, floor, and wall bearing on the beam and ran a series of structural calculations. Based upon the review, Engineer A determined that the beam was seriously under-designed.
  • necessaryFactors content: The fire damage that prompted the insurance investigation; Engineer A's examination of the beam and observation that it appeared too light; Engineer A's structural calculations on the tributary area
  • sufficientFactors content: Fire-prompted forensic engagement + Engineer A's structural analysis of the beam
  • counterfactual content: Without the beam fire damage, the insurance investigation would not have occurred and the pre-existing under-design would likely have gone undetected.
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Beam Fire Damage', 'proeth:description': "A beam in a residence under construction is burned, prompting the insurance company's request"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Forensic Examination', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A examines the beam and finds it appears too light for adequate structural support'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Structural Calculations', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A measures the tributary area and runs a series of structural calculations'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Under-Design Determination', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A determines the beam is seriously under-designed'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/57#",
    "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/57#CausalChain_8",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A measured the tributary area of the roof, floor, and wall bearing on the beam and ran a series of structural calculations. Based upon the review, Engineer A determined that the beam was seriously under-designed.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "A beam in a residence under construction is burned, prompting the insurance company\u0027s request",
      "proeth:element": "Beam Fire Damage",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A examines the beam and finds it appears too light for adequate structural support",
      "proeth:element": "Forensic Examination",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A measures the tributary area and runs a series of structural calculations",
      "proeth:element": "Structural Calculations",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A determines the beam is seriously under-designed",
      "proeth:element": "Under-Design Determination",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Beam Fire Damage",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the beam fire damage, the insurance investigation would not have occurred and the pre-existing under-design would likely have gone undetected.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Under-Design Determination",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "The fire damage that prompted the insurance investigation",
    "Engineer A\u0027s examination of the beam and observation that it appeared too light",
    "Engineer A\u0027s structural calculations on the tributary area"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A (BER Case 17-3)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Fire-prompted forensic engagement + Engineer A\u0027s structural analysis of the beam"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer A wrote the report and identified the design defect and the larger concern regarding the possibility that an inadequate structural member was used in other houses in the subdivision. Engineer A submitted the report to the retaining insurance company.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Determination that the beam was seriously under-designed
  • Observation that identical tract residence designs existed in the subdivision
  • Engineer A's contractual reporting duty to the retaining insurance company
Sufficient Factors:
  • Under-design finding + retained engagement obligating a report to the insurance company
Counterfactual Test: Without the under-design determination, the report would not have identified the design defect or the subdivision-wide concern.
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A (BER Case 17-3)
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Under-Design Determination
    Structural calculations show the beam is seriously under-designed
  2. Subdivision-Wide Risk Recognition
    Engineer A observes identical tract designs exist in other houses
  3. Forensic Report Submission
    Engineer A writes and submits the report to the retaining insurance company
  4. Board-Identified Further Obligations
    Board holds Engineer A must also contact building officials, homeowners, and the community association
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Under-Design Determination
  • effect: Forensic Report Submission
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A (BER Case 17-3)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A wrote the report and identified the design defect and the larger concern regarding the possibility that an inadequate structural member was used in other houses in the subdivision. Engineer A submitted the report to the retaining insurance company.
  • necessaryFactors content: Determination that the beam was seriously under-designed; Observation that identical tract residence designs existed in the subdivision; Engineer A's contractual reporting duty to the retaining insurance company
  • sufficientFactors content: Under-design finding + retained engagement obligating a report to the insurance company
  • counterfactual content: Without the under-design determination, the report would not have identified the design defect or the subdivision-wide concern.
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Under-Design Determination', 'proeth:description': 'Structural calculations show the beam is seriously under-designed'}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'Subdivision-Wide Risk Recognition', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A observes identical tract designs exist in other houses'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Forensic Report Submission', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A writes and submits the report to the retaining insurance company'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Board-Identified Further Obligations', 'proeth:description': 'Board holds Engineer A must also contact building officials, homeowners, and the community association'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: direct
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/57#",
    "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/57#CausalChain_9",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A wrote the report and identified the design defect and the larger concern regarding the possibility that an inadequate structural member was used in other houses in the subdivision. Engineer A submitted the report to the retaining insurance company.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Structural calculations show the beam is seriously under-designed",
      "proeth:element": "Under-Design Determination",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A observes identical tract designs exist in other houses",
      "proeth:element": "Subdivision-Wide Risk Recognition",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A writes and submits the report to the retaining insurance company",
      "proeth:element": "Forensic Report Submission",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Board holds Engineer A must also contact building officials, homeowners, and the community association",
      "proeth:element": "Board-Identified Further Obligations",
      "proeth:step": 4
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Under-Design Determination",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the under-design determination, the report would not have identified the design defect or the subdivision-wide concern.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Forensic Report Submission",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Determination that the beam was seriously under-designed",
    "Observation that identical tract residence designs existed in the subdivision",
    "Engineer A\u0027s contractual reporting duty to the retaining insurance company"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A (BER Case 17-3)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Under-design finding + retained engagement obligating a report to the insurance company"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: Engineer A, a PE responsible for the City’s building inspection program, was pressed between reductions in staff due to budget cuts and implementation of new, more rigid code requirements which greatly enhanced and protected the public’s health and safety. Engineer A met with the chairman of the local city council to discuss his concerns.

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Staff reductions caused by budget cuts
  • Implementation of new, more rigid code requirements increasing inspection workload
  • Engineer A's responsibility for the City's building inspection program
Sufficient Factors:
  • Staff reduction + heavier code enforcement burden + Engineer A's programmatic responsibility for public safety
Counterfactual Test: Without the budget-driven staff reduction, Engineer A would not have been pressed for resources and likely would not have escalated concerns to the city council chairman.
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer A (BER Case 98-5)
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Budget-Driven Staff Reduction
    Budget cuts reduce the City's building inspection staff
  2. New Code Implementation
    More rigid code requirements increase the inspection burden
  3. Concern Escalation Meeting
    Engineer A meets with the city council chairman to discuss concerns
  4. Grandfathering Proposal
    Chairman offers additional inspectors conditioned on grandfathering buildings under the older code
  5. Board Ethical Determination
    Board determines it was not ethical for Engineer A to concur with the proposal or sign inadequate inspection reports
Field classification (triples vs literals)
Relations (structural triples)
  • cause: Budget-Driven Staff Reduction
  • effect: Concern Escalation Meeting
  • responsibleAgent: Engineer A (BER Case 98-5)
Literal extractions (kept for synthesis)
  • causalLanguage content: Engineer A, a PE responsible for the City’s building inspection program, was pressed between reductions in staff due to budget cuts and implementation of new, more rigid code requirements which greatly enhanced and protected the public’s health and safety. Engineer A met with the chairman of the local city council to discuss his concerns.
  • necessaryFactors content: Staff reductions caused by budget cuts; Implementation of new, more rigid code requirements increasing inspection workload; Engineer A's responsibility for the City's building inspection program
  • sufficientFactors content: Staff reduction + heavier code enforcement burden + Engineer A's programmatic responsibility for public safety
  • counterfactual content: Without the budget-driven staff reduction, Engineer A would not have been pressed for resources and likely would not have escalated concerns to the city council chairman.
  • causalSequence content: {'proeth:step': 1, 'proeth:element': 'Budget-Driven Staff Reduction', 'proeth:description': "Budget cuts reduce the City's building inspection staff"}; {'proeth:step': 2, 'proeth:element': 'New Code Implementation', 'proeth:description': 'More rigid code requirements increase the inspection burden'}; {'proeth:step': 3, 'proeth:element': 'Concern Escalation Meeting', 'proeth:description': 'Engineer A meets with the city council chairman to discuss concerns'}; {'proeth:step': 4, 'proeth:element': 'Grandfathering Proposal', 'proeth:description': 'Chairman offers additional inspectors conditioned on grandfathering buildings under the older code'}; {'proeth:step': 5, 'proeth:element': 'Board Ethical Determination', 'proeth:description': 'Board determines it was not ethical for Engineer A to concur with the proposal or sign inadequate inspection reports'}
  • responsibilityType assessment: shared
  • withinAgentControl assessment: True
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/ontology/case/57#",
    "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/57#CausalChain_10",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A, a PE responsible for the City\u2019s building inspection program, was pressed between reductions in staff due to budget cuts and implementation of new, more rigid code requirements which greatly enhanced and protected the public\u2019s health and safety. Engineer A met with the chairman of the local city council to discuss his concerns.",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Budget cuts reduce the City\u0027s building inspection staff",
      "proeth:element": "Budget-Driven Staff Reduction",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "More rigid code requirements increase the inspection burden",
      "proeth:element": "New Code Implementation",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A meets with the city council chairman to discuss concerns",
      "proeth:element": "Concern Escalation Meeting",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Chairman offers additional inspectors conditioned on grandfathering buildings under the older code",
      "proeth:element": "Grandfathering Proposal",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Board determines it was not ethical for Engineer A to concur with the proposal or sign inadequate inspection reports",
      "proeth:element": "Board Ethical Determination",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Budget-Driven Staff Reduction",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the budget-driven staff reduction, Engineer A would not have been pressed for resources and likely would not have escalated concerns to the city council chairman.",
  "proeth:discoveredInSection": "discussion",
  "proeth:effect": "Concern Escalation Meeting",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Staff reductions caused by budget cuts",
    "Implementation of new, more rigid code requirements increasing inspection workload",
    "Engineer A\u0027s responsibility for the City\u0027s building inspection program"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A (BER Case 98-5)",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Staff reduction + heavier code enforcement burden + Engineer A\u0027s programmatic responsibility for public safety"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}
Allen Temporal Relations (9)
Interval algebra relationships with OWL-Time standard properties
From Entity Allen Relation To Entity OWL-Time Property Evidence
structural changes to the building before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		issuance of the certificate of occupancy time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		following construction modifications, the building was issued a certificate of occupancy by a county... [more]
budget cuts and staff reductions overlaps
Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2 		implementation of new, more rigid code requirements time:intervalOverlaps
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalOverlaps 		Engineer A... was pressed between reductions in staff due to budget cuts and implementation of new, ... [more]
inspector's failure to report the defect before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer Intern A's discovery of the defect time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		While reviewing the inspection report for a bridge, Engineer Intern A observed that an inspector... ... [more]
Engineer Intern A's discovery of the defect in the inspection report before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer Intern A's review of five years of reports and photographs time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Concerned, Engineer Intern A reviewed the inspector's reports and photographs going back five years
Engineer Intern A's retrospective review before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Engineer Intern A's report to Engineer B time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		discovered that the same inspector had failed to report the same defect for at least five years. Eng... [more]
existence of the visibly obvious defect overlaps
Entity1 starts before Entity2 and ends during Entity2 		inspector's inspection reports over five years time:intervalOverlaps
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalOverlaps 		the same inspector had failed to report the same defect for at least five years
Engineer Intern A's supervision by Engineer B during
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2 		Engineer Intern A's discovery and reporting of the defect time:intervalDuring
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring 		Engineer Intern A is an unlicensed engineer in the DOT's bridge inspection program under the supervi... [more]
sale of the property to Jones before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		Jones's barn extension and removal of columns and footings time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		Later, Jones proposed to extend the barn and, as part of the extension, removed portions of the colu... [more]
buildings under construction before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		proposed grandfathering ordinance time:intervalBefore
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalBefore 		a proposed ordinance that would permit buildings already under construction to be 'grandfathered' un... [more]
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