Step 4: Full View

Entities, provisions, decisions, and narrative

Back to Case
Failure To Include Information In Engineering Report
Step 4 of 5

226

Entities

6

Provisions

0

Precedents

20

Questions

22

Conclusions

Stalemate

Transformation
Stalemate Competing obligations remain in tension without clear resolution
Engineer B could not simultaneously satisfy his duty of complete, objective reporting and his implicit loyalty to the retaining municipality (a party adverse to Engineer A in litigation); the Board finds the omissions unethical but does not resolve the underlying structural tension, instead noting that forensic engineers retained by litigants face an inherent, recurring conflict between these two obligations that this case does not eliminate for future practice.
Full Entity Graph
Loading...
Context: 0 Normative: 0 Temporal: 0 Synthesis: 0
Filter:
Building graph...
Entity Types
Synthesis Reasoning Flow
Shows how NSPE provisions inform questions and conclusions - the board's reasoning chain

The board's deliberative chain: which code provisions informed which ethical questions, and how those questions were resolved. Toggle "Show Entities" to see which entities each provision applies to.

Nodes:
■ Provision (e.g., I.1.) ◆ Question: Board = board-explicit, Impl = implicit, Tens = principle tension, Theo = theoretical, CF = counterfactual ▬ Conclusion: Board = board-explicit, Resp = question response, Ext = analytical extension, Synth = principle synthesis ▬ Entity (hidden by default)
Edges:
→ informs → answered by → applies to
Provisions (6)
View Extraction

All provisions in play for this case: the union of board-stated references and analysis-found citations (see each provision's provenance badge). The OntServe case page's Cited NSPE Provisions panel shows the subset actually cited by the committed conclusions, so its count can be lower.

II.3.a board + analysis Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony, which should bear the date indicating when it was current.
How this applies in the case (showing 3 of 30)
Obligation
Engineer B Complete Reporting Duty
Requires inclusion of all relevant pile driving data in the report
Action
Selective Report Issuance
Issuing a report while leaving out pertinent information violates the duty to include all relevant data
State
Engineer B Report Omissions
The provision requires all relevant information be included and Engineer B omitted key facts
Obligation (2)
  • Engineer B Complete Reporting Duty
    Requires inclusion of all relevant pile driving data in the report
  • Engineer B Client Service Duty
    Requires a complete report that does not omit relevant findings
Action (5)
  • Selective Report Issuance
    Issuing a report while leaving out pertinent information violates the duty to include all relevant data
  • Records Exclusion Decision
    Excluding records from the report omits relevant information required to be truthful and complete
  • Consultation Omission
    Failing to include consultation findings omits pertinent information from the report
  • Test Deficiency Testimony
    Testimony about test deficiencies must be objective and include all relevant facts
  • Design Basis Testimony
    Testimony on design basis must be truthful and include all pertinent information
State (5)
  • Engineer B Report Omissions
    The provision requires all relevant information be included and Engineer B omitted key facts
  • Pile Records Scope Exclusion
    Excluding pile records from the report violates the duty to include all pertinent information
  • Flawed Test Pile Conditions
    Failing to report flawed test pile conditions omits relevant information from the report
  • Incomplete Report Misdirection Risk
    An incomplete report risks misdirecting readers due to missing relevant information
  • Report Precludes Expert Review
    Omitting information prevents proper expert review contrary to the truthful reporting requirement
Constraint (2)
  • Engineer B Material Fact Omission
    This provision requires all relevant information be included in reports, directly addressing the omission constraint
  • Engineer B Selective Data Use
    This provision mandates inclusion of pertinent information, which is violated by selectively disregarding pile driving records
Principle (4)
  • Complete Reporting in Test Pile Report
    The provision requires all relevant information be included, which the report omitted
  • Complete Reporting in Pile Report
    The provision requires all relevant information be included, which the report omitted regarding equipment failure
  • Objectivity in Forensic Opinion
    The provision requires truthful reporting based on facts rather than unsupported suspicion
  • Objectivity in Adversarial Setting
    The provision requires objectivity and truthfulness even in adversarial contexts
Role (1)
  • Engineer B Forensic Test Engineer
    Issued a report that failed to include all relevant information about the pile driving test failures
Event (4)
  • Contractor Claim Lawsuit
    The engineering report lacking relevant information became central to the contractor claim lawsuit
  • Test Equipment Failure
    The report should have included information about the test equipment failure as relevant data
  • Pile Bond Disruption
    The report omitted pertinent information regarding the pile bond disruption
  • Strength Gain Confirmation
    The report failed to include relevant strength gain confirmation data
Resource (4)
  • Engineer B Concluding Report
    This report must include all relevant and pertinent information to be truthful and objective
  • Pile Driving Records
    These records represent relevant data that must be included in the engineering report
  • Geotechnical Firm Report
    This report contains pertinent information on pile strength gain that must be included
  • Accepted Wave Equation Calculations
    This analysis is pertinent technical data required to be included in the report
Capability (3)
  • Engineer B Report Communication
    Engineer B's report to the municipality omitted relevant information about the 19 piles that did not meet driving criteria
  • Engineer B Pile Strength Analysis
    Engineer B's analysis formed the basis for the report but excluded pertinent findings about pile deficiencies
  • Engineer B Pile Data Interpretation
    Engineer B's interpretation of test data should have included all relevant information in the final report
II.3.b board + analysis Engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter.
How this applies in the case (showing 3 of 4)
Obligation
Engineer B Objectivity Duty
Requires opinions founded on knowledge of facts and competence
Action
Design Basis Testimony
Technical opinions on design basis must be grounded in known facts and competence
Principle
Objectivity in Forensic Opinion
The provision requires opinions be founded on facts and competence, not disbelief without verification
Obligation (1)
  • Engineer B Objectivity Duty
    Requires opinions founded on knowledge of facts and competence
Action (2)
  • Design Basis Testimony
    Technical opinions on design basis must be grounded in known facts and competence
  • Test Deficiency Testimony
    Opinions on test deficiencies must be founded on factual knowledge and expertise
Principle (1)
  • Objectivity in Forensic Opinion
    The provision requires opinions be founded on facts and competence, not disbelief without verification
II.3.c board + analysis Engineers shall issue no statements, criticisms, or arguments on technical matters that are inspired or paid for by interested parties, unless they have prefaced their comments by explicitly identifying the interested parties on whose behalf they are speaking, and by revealing the existence of any interest the engineers may have in the matters.
How this applies in the case (showing 2 of 5)
Action
Expert Witness Retention
Retention as an expert witness requires disclosing the interested party being represented
State
Engineer B Client Defense Bias
The provision addresses bias from interested parties which relates to Engineer B defending the client
Action (3)
  • Expert Witness Retention
    Retention as an expert witness requires disclosing the interested party being represented
  • Design Basis Testimony
    Testimony given on behalf of a paying party must disclose that interest
  • Test Deficiency Testimony
    Testimony inspired by an interested party must reveal that relationship
State (2)
  • Engineer B Client Defense Bias
    The provision addresses bias from interested parties which relates to Engineer B defending the client
  • Contractor Claim Adversarial Posture
    Taking an adversarial posture for a client without disclosure relates to this provision on interested party influence
III.1.a board + analysis Engineers shall acknowledge their errors and shall not distort or alter the facts.
How this applies in the case (showing 3 of 19)
Obligation
Engineer B Objectivity Duty
Requires acknowledging errors and not distorting facts in forming opinions
Action
Post-Report Justification
Justifying omissions after the fact distorts rather than acknowledges the original error
State
Engineer B Report Omissions
Omitting facts in the report constitutes distorting or altering facts
Obligation (2)
  • Engineer B Objectivity Duty
    Requires acknowledging errors and not distorting facts in forming opinions
  • Engineer B Fact Gathering Diligence Duty
    Requires diligence to avoid distorting facts through incomplete inquiry
Action (3)
  • Post-Report Justification
    Justifying omissions after the fact distorts rather than acknowledges the original error
  • Records Exclusion Decision
    Excluding records alters the factual completeness of the report
  • Selective Report Issuance
    Selectively issuing a report distorts the full factual picture
State (3)
  • Engineer B Report Omissions
    Omitting facts in the report constitutes distorting or altering facts
  • Flawed Test Pile Conditions
    Not acknowledging flawed test pile conditions is a failure to acknowledge errors or facts
  • Pile Capacity Expert Disagreement
    Disagreement over pile capacity facts relates to the duty not to distort facts
Constraint (2)
  • Engineer B Material Fact Omission
    This provision prohibits distorting or altering facts, which relates to omitting material facts in the report
  • Engineer B Selective Data Use
    This provision requires engineers not to distort facts, which is violated by selectively disregarding available data
Principle (3)
  • Objectivity in Forensic Opinion
    The provision requires engineers not distort facts, which relates to disregarding pile driving records
  • Complete Reporting in Test Pile Report
    The provision prohibits altering facts, relevant to omitting equipment failure information
  • Complete Reporting in Pile Report
    The provision prohibits altering facts, relevant to omitting material facts about test results
Role (1)
  • Engineer B Forensic Test Engineer
    Failed to acknowledge or accurately state facts about the equipment failure and test results in the report
Event (2)
  • Test Equipment Failure
    The engineer did not acknowledge or disclose the test equipment failure as a fact
  • Pile Bond Disruption
    The engineer did not disclose the pile bond disruption fact in the report
Resource (1)
  • Engineer B Concluding Report
    Errors or omissions in this report must be acknowledged and facts not distorted
Capability (2)
  • Engineer B Report Communication
    Failing to include all pile data in the report distorted the complete facts of the test program
  • Engineer B Pile Strength Analysis
    Engineer B's selective analysis of pile data may have altered the true picture of pile performance
III.1.b board + analysis Engineers shall advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful.
How this applies in the case (showing 3 of 6)
Action
Consultation Omission
Failing to advise on issues found in consultation withholds warnings about project success
Event
Premature Driving Refusal
The engineer should have advised the client about issues related to premature driving refusal
Resource
Dock Design Calculations
Engineer must advise client if pile strength fails to meet these design requirements
Action (2)
  • Consultation Omission
    Failing to advise on issues found in consultation withholds warnings about project success
  • Test Deficiency Testimony
    Not disclosing test deficiencies fails to warn of potential project failure
Event (1)
  • Premature Driving Refusal
    The engineer should have advised the client about issues related to premature driving refusal
Resource (2)
  • Dock Design Calculations
    Engineer must advise client if pile strength fails to meet these design requirements
  • Engineer B Concluding Report
    This report should convey whether the project meets design requirements or faces failure risk
Capability (1)
  • Engineer B Report Communication
    Engineer B should have advised the municipality that the pile foundation project faced potential problems based on the 19 piles
III.3.a board + analysis Engineers shall avoid the use of statements containing a material misrepresentation of fact or omitting a material fact.
How this applies in the case (showing 3 of 25)
Obligation
Engineer B Complete Reporting Duty
Omitting pile driving data constitutes omission of a material fact
Action
Selective Report Issuance
Omitting material facts in the report constitutes material misrepresentation
State
Engineer B Report Omissions
Omitting material facts in the report is a direct violation of this provision
Obligation (2)
  • Engineer B Complete Reporting Duty
    Omitting pile driving data constitutes omission of a material fact
  • Engineer B Client Service Duty
    A report omitting material facts fails faithful service to the client
Action (4)
  • Selective Report Issuance
    Omitting material facts in the report constitutes material misrepresentation
  • Records Exclusion Decision
    Excluding records omits material facts needed for an accurate report
  • Consultation Omission
    Omitting consultation results omits a material fact from the report
  • Test Condition Deviation
    Deviating from stated test conditions without disclosure misrepresents test facts
State (6)
  • Engineer B Report Omissions
    Omitting material facts in the report is a direct violation of this provision
  • Pile Records Scope Exclusion
    Excluding pile records omits material facts from the report
  • Engineer B Fact Gathering Deficiency
    Deficient fact gathering leads to omission of material facts in violation of this provision
  • Available On-Site Representatives
    Failing to consult available representatives leads to omission of material facts
  • Incomplete Report Misdirection Risk
    An incomplete report risks misrepresentation through omission of material facts
  • Report Precludes Expert Review
    Omitting material facts precludes proper expert review of the report
Constraint (2)
  • Engineer B Material Fact Omission
    This provision explicitly prohibits omitting a material fact in statements or reports
  • Engineer B Selective Data Use
    This provision prohibits omission of material facts which results from selectively disregarding verification means
Principle (3)
  • Complete Reporting in Test Pile Report
    The provision prohibits omitting material facts, directly matching the omission in the report
  • Complete Reporting in Pile Report
    The provision prohibits omitting material facts, directly matching the omission of equipment failure and pile replacement
  • Client Service Loyalty in Report
    The provision's prohibition on omitting material facts relates to the disservice caused to the client
Role (1)
  • Engineer B Forensic Test Engineer
    Omitted material facts regarding the dynamic test equipment failure and pile driving issues from the report
Event (3)
  • Test Equipment Failure
    Omitting the test equipment failure was a material omission of fact
  • Pile Bond Disruption
    Omitting the pile bond disruption was a material omission of fact
  • Strength Gain Confirmation
    Omitting strength gain confirmation data constituted a material misrepresentation
Resource (2)
  • Engineer B Concluding Report
    This report must not omit material facts such as pile strength gain data
  • Geotechnical Firm Report
    Omitting this material fact from the final report constitutes misrepresentation
Capability (2)
  • Engineer B Report Communication
    The report omitted material facts about the 19 piles that did not meet required driving criteria
  • Engineer B Pile Data Interpretation
    Engineer B's interpretation omitted material facts regarding the pile test data discrepancies
Cross-Case Connections
View Extraction
Implicit Similar Cases 10 Similarity Network

Cases sharing ontology classes or structural similarity. These connections arise from constrained extraction against a shared vocabulary.

Component Similarity 45% Facts Similarity 30% Discussion Similarity 53% Provision Overlap 100% Tag Overlap 11% Principle Overlap 59%
Shared provisions: III.1.f View Synthesis
Component Similarity 56% Facts Similarity 49% Discussion Similarity 55% Outcome Alignment 100% Tag Overlap 60% Principle Overlap 51%
Same outcome unethical View Synthesis
Component Similarity 56% Facts Similarity 54% Discussion Similarity 51% Outcome Alignment 100% Tag Overlap 40% Principle Overlap 69%
Same outcome unethical View Synthesis
Component Similarity 59% Facts Similarity 60% Discussion Similarity 71% Outcome Alignment 50% Tag Overlap 88% Principle Overlap 70%
View Synthesis
Component Similarity 51% Facts Similarity 39% Discussion Similarity 38% Outcome Alignment 100% Tag Overlap 50% Principle Overlap 46%
Same outcome unethical View Synthesis
Component Similarity 55% Facts Similarity 44% Discussion Similarity 54% Outcome Alignment 100% Tag Overlap 18% Principle Overlap 61%
Same outcome unethical View Synthesis
Component Similarity 49% Facts Similarity 35% Discussion Similarity 48% Outcome Alignment 100% Tag Overlap 44% Principle Overlap 61%
Same outcome unethical View Synthesis
Component Similarity 56% Facts Similarity 58% Discussion Similarity 55% Outcome Alignment 100% Tag Overlap 20% Principle Overlap 55%
Same outcome unethical View Synthesis
Component Similarity 58% Facts Similarity 56% Discussion Similarity 48% Outcome Alignment 100% Tag Overlap 7% Principle Overlap 56%
Same outcome unethical View Synthesis
Component Similarity 52% Facts Similarity 48% Discussion Similarity 45% Outcome Alignment 100% Tag Overlap 31% Principle Overlap 51%
Same outcome unethical View Synthesis
Questions & Conclusions (4 board)
View Extraction
Board Board question 1

Was it ethical for Engineer B to not have included the failed operation of the test equipment in his report?

Board conclusion It was unethical for Engineer B to issue his report without mentioning the failed operation of the testing equipment.
Resolved by: The board weighed Engineer B's duty of objective, complete reporting against any interest in presenting a clean, client-favorable conclusion, and found the disclosure duty controlling because the equipment failure directly bore on the reliability of the results. (confidence 0.85)
II.3.a. III.1.a. III.3.a. 3 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
Implicit (2)

Why did Engineer B offer inconsistent justifications after the fact (first citing distrust of the driving records and venting concerns, later citing scope limitations), and what does this inconsistency reveal about the actual basis for the omissions in the report?

AnalyticalEngineer B's shifting justifications for omitting the driving records - first citing distrust of the records and venting concerns, then later citing scope limitations - are not merely inconsistent explanations but evidence that neither justification was the true operative reason at the time the report was written. This pattern suggests the omission was decided upon for reasons related to the desired outcome of the report, with post hoc rationales supplied only when the omission was challenged, which is itself indicative of a lack of objectivity in the original reporting process.
Resolved by: The board weighed the timing and content of the two justifications against each other, concluding that their mutual inconsistency was itself evidence that the stated rationale did not reflect the actual operative reason for the omission. (confidence 0.72)
III.1.a. II.3.a. III.3.a. 2 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
Also discussed in: C105

Should Engineer B have disclosed to the municipality, before issuing the report, that known flaws in the test conditions (vibratory hammer use, undocumented hammer drops, non-duplicated penetration depth) might undermine the reliability of the test pile results relative to the original 90 piles?

AnalyticalEngineer B should have disclosed, prior to or within the report itself, that the test conditions -including the equipment failure, use of a vibratory hammer not used in the original driving, and undocumented hammer drops before blow-count recording- differed materially from the original pile driving conditions. Failure to disclose these known deviations deprived the municipality, Engineer A, and any reviewing body of the ability to properly weigh the reliability of the test pile conclusions against the original 90-pile driving records, and this omission independently undermines the report's claim to completeness regardless of the scope-of-work argument.
Resolved by: The board treated the disclosure duty as independent of and prior to the scope-of-work argument, so that even if the scope exclusion of driving records were accepted, the failure to disclose test-condition deviations would separately breach completeness. (confidence 0.80)
III.1.a. III.3.a. II.3.a. 2 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
Also discussed in: C101
Principle tension (1)

Does Complete Reporting in Test Pile Report conflict with Client Service Loyalty in Report when full disclosure of test equipment failure and flawed test conditions could weaken the client's litigation position?

AnalyticalComplete Reporting in Test Pile Report and Complete Reporting in Pile Report were never actually in tension with Client Service Loyalty in Report in a legitimate professional sense—the appearance of tension arose only because Engineer B conflated 'serving the client' with 'serving the client's litigation position.' Genuine client service, properly understood under the Code, requires giving the client an accurate and complete engineering picture (including unfavorable facts like equipment failure and refusal data) so the client can make informed decisions, even in litigation. The case teaches that apparent principle conflicts between completeness and loyalty are often illusory, dissolving once loyalty is correctly defined as loyalty to sound engineering practice rather than to a party's desired outcome.
Resolved by: The board did not trade off completeness against loyalty but redefined loyalty itself, holding that genuine client service under the Code is loyalty to sound engineering practice, so completeness always prevails once loyalty is correctly understood. (confidence 0.78)
II.3.a. III.3.a. III.1.a. 3 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
Also discussed in: C204
Theoretical (1)

From a deontological perspective, did Engineer B fulfill his duty of complete and truthful reporting by omitting the test equipment failure and the pile driving refusal data from his concluding report?

AnalyticalFrom a deontological standpoint, Engineer B failed his duty of complete and truthful reporting. A duty-based ethic does not permit selective omission of material facts simply because they are inconvenient to a conclusion; the duty to report truthfully and completely is not conditioned on whether the omitted facts happen to support or undermine the client's position. By omitting both the test equipment failure and the driving refusal data, Engineer B violated a categorical obligation of honesty in professional reporting, independent of whether the ultimate substantive conclusion happened to be defensible.
Resolved by: The board applied a duty-based framework in which the categorical obligation of truthful, complete reporting was not weighed against or diminished by considerations of whether the omitted facts helped or hurt the client's litigation position. (confidence 0.77)
II.3.a. III.1.a. III.3.a. 2 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
Counterfactual (1)

If the dynamic test equipment had not failed during the test pile driving, would the Board still have found Engineer B's report ethically deficient for its treatment of the 19 questioned piles?

AnalyticalIf the dynamic test equipment had functioned properly throughout the test, the Board would still likely have found the report ethically deficient because the deficiency lies not in the equipment failure alone but in the failure to disclose it, and separately in the failure to disclose the driving refusal data for the 19 piles. The equipment failure is an aggravating factor compounding the report's incompleteness, not the sole basis for the ethical violation; the omission of the refusal data would independently constitute a violation regardless of equipment performance.
Resolved by: The board separated the equipment-failure disclosure duty from the refusal-data disclosure duty, weighing each independently so that curing one deficiency (hypothetically, proper equipment function) would not discharge the other. (confidence 0.85)
II.3.a. III.1.a. III.3.a. 3 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
Board Board question 2

Was it ethical for Engineer B not to communicate with any representatives of Engineer A about the project?

Board conclusion It was unethical for Engineer B to not communicate with any representative of Engineer A about the project.
Resolved by: The board balanced Engineer B's obligation to gather all pertinent facts, including from parties with firsthand knowledge, against the practical independence expected of a retained forensic expert, and found the fact-gathering duty controlling given that relevant witnesses were reachable. (confidence 0.80)
II.3.a. III.3.a. 3 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
Theoretical (1)

Did Engineer B act with professional integrity when he declined to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representatives, who were available to speak to the accuracy of the pile driving records, before finalizing his report?

AnalyticalEngineer B's declination to communicate with Engineer A's available on-site representatives, who could speak directly to the accuracy of the pile driving records, reflects a failure of professional integrity in fact-gathering. Given Engineer B's own later admission that the driving records looked 'suspicious,' diligence and integrity required seeking out the individuals best positioned to confirm or refute that suspicion before finalizing conclusions that materially affected Engineer A's professional and legal standing.
Resolved by: The board weighed the burden of additional outreach against the materiality of the professional and legal consequences for Engineer A, finding that acknowledged suspicion about the records obligated further diligence over efficiency or scope convenience. (confidence 0.85)
II.3.a. III.1.a. III.3.a. 2 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
Also discussed in: C103
Counterfactual (1)

If Engineer A's on-site representatives had not been available or willing to testify about the accuracy of the driving records, would the Board still have found Engineer B's failure to communicate with Engineer A's representatives unethical?

Board Board question 3

Was it ethical for Engineer B not to communicate with the contractor’s supervisor and workers who were on the job during construction?

Board conclusion It was unethical for Engineer B to not communicate with the contractor’s supervisor and workers who were on the job during construction.
Resolved by: The board weighed the diligence expected of a forensic investigator who doubted the existing records against the convenience of relying solely on documentary review, finding the duty to seek firsthand corroboration prevailed. (confidence 0.80)
II.3.a. III.3.a. 3 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
Theoretical (1)

Did Engineer B fulfill his duty of diligent fact-gathering by failing to interview the contractor's supervisor and workers who directly observed the original pile driving, especially given his own admission that he found the driving records 'suspicious'?

Also discussed in: C104
Board Board question 4

Was it ethical for Engineer B to issue his report without mentioning that the 19 piles questioned had, according to the driving records, met refusal?

Board conclusion It was unethical for Engineer B to issue his report without mentioning that the 19 piles questioned had, according to the driving records, met refusal.
Resolved by: The board weighed Engineer B's discretion to define the scope of a forensic assignment against his overriding duty to disclose facts materially bearing on pile capacity, and found the completeness duty controlling regardless of how the scope was framed. (confidence 0.80)
II.3.a. III.1.a. III.3.a. 3 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
Implicit (1)

Did Engineer B's decision to define 'scope of work' narrowly so as to exclude review of the pile driving records itself constitute a methodological choice that predetermined a client-favorable conclusion?

AnalyticalEngineer B's narrow definition of 'scope of work' to exclude the pile driving records was not a neutral methodological boundary but a choice that functionally removed the single most important contradictory data set from consideration. Because the driving records were directly relevant to whether the 19 piles met design safety factors, defining them as out-of-scope after the fact suggests the scope was fitted to produce a client-favorable conclusion rather than derived from an objective engineering assessment of what data were necessary to answer the question posed.
Resolved by: The board treated the engineer's discretion to define scope as subordinate to the objectivity duty once the scope choice functioned to remove the most material contradictory evidence from consideration. (confidence 0.78)
II.3.a. II.3.c. III.3.a. 3 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
Also discussed in: C101 C303
Principle tension (2)

How should Objectivity in Adversarial Setting be reconciled with Complete Reporting in Pile Report when the underlying driving records, if fully reported, would have undermined the very conclusion the report reached?

AnalyticalThe unresolved tension in this case is methodological rather than purely ethical: Engineer B's narrow, after-the-fact definition of 'scope of work' functioned as a mechanism to avoid confronting Complete Reporting obligations by excluding inconvenient data (the driving records) before the objectivity question ever arose. This reveals that scope-of-work definitions are not ethically neutral technical boundaries—they can themselves become instruments of bias when set unilaterally by an engineer with a stake in a client-favorable outcome, without independent scrutiny. The case establishes that Objectivity in Forensic Opinion must extend upstream to the scoping decision itself, not just to interpretation of data once scope is set, because scope narrowing that excludes materially relevant contradictory evidence is functionally equivalent to selective reporting.
Resolved by: The board subordinated Engineer B's claimed methodological discretion in setting scope to the overriding objectivity duty, treating a self-serving unilateral scope narrowing as functionally equivalent to selective reporting rather than a neutral technical boundary. (confidence 0.75)
II.3.a. III.3.a. II.3.c. 2 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
Also discussed in: C106

Can Objectivity in Forensic Opinion be maintained if an engineer selectively narrows the scope of investigation to exclude data (such as driving records) that would materially affect the conclusion?

Also discussed in: C201 C303
Theoretical (1)

Did the outcome of Engineer B's report—supporting the municipality's litigation position against Engineer A—justify his selective use of test data and omission of contradictory driving records?

AnalyticalThe fact that Engineer B's report happened to support the municipality's litigation position does not justify the selective use of data. Evaluating an engineer's conduct by the correctness or convenience of the outcome for one party is a consequentialist standard that the engineering codes of ethics reject in favor of process-based objectivity requirements; an ethically sound methodology must be evaluated independent of whose litigation interest it serves. Since the process here excluded material contradictory evidence and lacked outreach to independent knowledgeable parties, the outcome cannot retroactively validate the process.
Resolved by: The board refused to treat outcome-favorability to the retaining client as a countervailing justification, categorically subordinating any consequentialist defense to the process-based objectivity and completeness duties. (confidence 0.85)
II.3.a. II.3.c. III.3.a. 3 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
Counterfactual (2)

If Engineer B's written scope of work had explicitly and formally excluded review of the pile driving records (rather than this being an after-the-fact justification), would the Board still have concluded that omitting the refusal data from the report was unethical?

AnalyticalEven if Engineer B's scope of work had been formally and explicitly documented in advance to exclude review of the pile driving records, the Board would likely still have found the omission unethical, because the codes of ethics require objectivity and completeness in reported conclusions regardless of self-imposed scope limitations. An engineer cannot ethically narrow the scope of an investigation in a way that predictably conceals material contradictory evidence directly bearing on the central question the report purports to answer.
Resolved by: The board treated the codes' completeness requirement as overriding any self-defined scope-of-work limitation, holding that formal documentation of a narrow scope cannot immunize an engineer from the duty to disclose materially relevant contradictory data. (confidence 0.80)
II.3.a. III.3.a. 2 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative

If the test piles had been driven under conditions identical to the original piles (without a vibratory hammer and without dropped hammer strikes before blow-count recording), would the Board's finding that Engineer B's report was materially incomplete still apply with the same force?

Analytical questions (2)

Questions the analysis generates beyond the board’s explicit questions: implicit issues, principle tensions, theoretical framings, and counterfactuals. A question with an identified source board question appears nested under that question above.

Implicit (1)

Given that Engineer B was retained by the municipality, which was a party adverse to Engineer A in litigation, what safeguards should have existed to prevent the report from being shaped by the retaining party's litigation interests rather than objective engineering findings?

AnalyticalThe Board did not explicitly address the structural conflict created by Engineer B's retention: because the municipality was an adverse party to Engineer A in ongoing litigation, Engineer B's engagement itself created an inherent tension between objectivity and client loyalty. The Board's conclusion that the omission was unethical would be strengthened by recognizing that forensic engineers retained by litigants have a heightened, not diminished, duty of complete disclosure precisely because the adversarial context creates structural incentives toward selective reporting.
Resolved by: The Board implicitly subordinated client service loyalty to objectivity by treating the omission as unethical regardless of the adversarial retention, though it never articulated the tradeoff directly. (confidence 0.60)
II.3.a. II.3.c. 3 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
AnalyticalThe fact that Engineer B was retained by the municipality, a party adverse to Engineer A in ongoing litigation, created an inherent risk that the forensic report would be shaped by litigation strategy rather than objective engineering findings. Adequate safeguards would have required Engineer B to adopt an explicit, documented, and consistent scope of investigation established before testing began, to disclose all known limitations of the test conditions, and to seek input from all parties with relevant firsthand knowledge, including Engineer A's representatives. The absence of these safeguards allowed the report to function as an advocacy document rather than an independent technical opinion.
Resolved by: The board subordinated client service loyalty to the objectivity duty, holding that adversarial retention required affirmative procedural safeguards rather than reliance on the engineer's good faith alone. (confidence 0.75)
II.3.a. II.3.b. II.3.c. 3 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
Principle tension (1)

How should Engineer B's duty of Objectivity in Forensic Opinion be balanced against Client Service Loyalty in Report when the retaining municipality was a party in adversarial litigation against Engineer A?

AnalyticalThe case demonstrates that when Objectivity in Forensic Opinion and Client Service Loyalty in Report come into direct conflict in an adversarial litigation setting, the Code does not treat them as equally weighted values to be balanced—it subordinates client loyalty entirely. Engineer B's conduct shows what happens when this hierarchy is inverted: the retention by an adverse litigant did not relax his objectivity duty but rather heightened the need for it, precisely because the risk of unconscious or motivated bias toward the retaining party's litigation position was greatest in that context. The Board's findings across all four omissions indicate that forensic engineers retained by parties to litigation have a duty to affirmatively guard against client-serving selectivity, not merely avoid intentional dishonesty.
Resolved by: The board rejected an equal-weighting balance between objectivity and client loyalty, instead subordinating client loyalty entirely whenever the two came into direct conflict in adversarial forensic engagements. (confidence 0.80)
II.3.a. II.3.b. II.3.c. 3 principles 3 facts Conditions Narrative
Also discussed in: C102 C202
Decisions & Arguments (4)
View Extraction

Should Engineer B include the failed test equipment operation and the driving records showing the 19 piles met refusal in his report?

Options considered:
O1 Report the equipment failure during testing and disclose that the 19 questioned piles had met refusal according to the driving records, giving the municipality a complete picture. Board's choice
O2 Define the scope of work narrowly to exclude review of the pile driving records and omit mention of the test equipment failure, as Engineer B actually did.
O3 Issue the report while explicitly flagging that driving records and equipment performance were not reviewed, alerting the client to the report's limits without fully investigating them.
Argument structure (Toulmin):
Grounds

Engineer B observed the test equipment fail during the pile load test, defined his scope of work to exclude the pile driving records, and issued a report on the 19 questioned piles that omitted both facts; wave equation calculations on the omitted records would have shown pile strength several multiples over design requirements.

Warrant

Engineers must include all relevant and pertinent information in their reports and exercise diligence in gathering facts material to the conclusions they report; a forensic report relied upon by third parties must not omit data that bears directly on the reliability of its conclusions.

Rebuttal

This duty would not require disclosure if the excluded records were genuinely immaterial to the scope for which Engineer B was retained, but the case shows Engineer B's own inconsistent justifications, first citing distrust of the records, later citing scope limits, undermine any claim that the exclusion was a legitimate methodological boundary.

Include All Relevant and Pertinent Information; Fact-Gathering Diligence

Should Engineer B have communicated with representatives of Engineer A to verify or refute his suspicions about the driving records?

Options considered:
O1 Seek out Engineer A's on-site representatives who had direct knowledge of the original driving conditions to corroborate or refute doubts about the driving records. Board's choice
O2 Proceed to distrust the driving records without contacting Engineer A's representatives, as Engineer B actually did.
Argument structure (Toulmin):
Grounds

Engineer B expressed distrust of the driving records but did not contact any representative of Engineer A, who had firsthand knowledge of the original pile driving conditions.

Warrant

An engineer forming a working hypothesis that casts doubt on documentary evidence has a duty of fact-gathering diligence to test that hypothesis against available firsthand sources before finalizing conclusions relied upon by others.

Rebuttal

This duty would not apply if Engineer B had no reasonable means of accessing Engineer A's representatives, but the case indicates no such barrier existed, making the omission a deliberate avoidance rather than an impossibility.

Fact-Gathering Diligence

Should Engineer B have consulted the contractor's supervisor and workers who were on the job during pile driving?

Options considered:
O1 Consult the contractor's on-site supervisor and workers to test the credibility of the driving records against firsthand accounts of the construction process. Board's choice
O2 Finalize the report relying only on documentary review and Engineer B's own suspicions, without seeking testimony from those present during construction.
Argument structure (Toulmin):
Grounds

Engineer B doubted the driving records but did not consult the contractor's supervisor or workers, who were present during the pile driving and could speak to the physical circumstances of the piles reaching refusal.

Warrant

Fact-gathering diligence requires an engineer to seek out available firsthand witnesses whose testimony bears directly on the credibility of evidence the engineer intends to question or disregard in a report relied upon by third parties.

Rebuttal

This duty would not apply if the supervisor and workers were unavailable or their recollections could not plausibly inform the reliability of the driving records, but nothing in the case suggests such unavailability.

Fact-Gathering Diligence

How should Engineer B have balanced objectivity in his forensic report against loyalty to the retaining municipality's adversarial litigation position?

Options considered:
O1 Report all known technical facts, including flaws in test conditions and equipment failure, even where such disclosure might weaken the municipality's litigation position against Engineer A. Board's choice
O2 Curate findings to support conclusions favorable to the municipality's litigation position, as Engineer B's pattern of omissions suggests occurred.
Argument structure (Toulmin):
Grounds

Engineer B was retained by the municipality, which was adverse to Engineer A in litigation, and Engineer B knew through the independent geotechnical consultant's testimony of the vibratory hammer use, undocumented hammer drops, and non-duplicated penetration depth, yet did not disclose these flaws alongside the equipment failure.

Warrant

Engineers must be objective and truthful in professional reports and must not allow client loyalty to compromise complete disclosure, and this duty of objectivity is heightened rather than diminished when the engineer is retained by a party adverse to another engineer in litigation.

Rebuttal

The duty of client loyalty would license withholding some information only if it were immaterial to the report's conclusions, but here the omitted flaws directly bore on the reliability of the test results, defeating any such justification.

Objectivity in Forensic Opinion; Client Service Loyalty in Report
Event Timeline (17)
17 sequenced 12 actions 5 events
Case timeline
Engineer A accepted retention by the municipality to design a dock supported on a foundation of 90 piles.
Causal-normative reasoning(confidence 0.50)
As an initial, ethically unmarked acceptance of the design engagement, this action functions as the contextual starting point for the professional relationship but does not itself trigger any obligation fulfillment or breach, leaving its significance tied to how later actions within that engagement are conducted.
During original construction driving, many piles, including the nineteen later cited by Engineer B, met essential refusal before reaching predicted penetration depth and did not initially show driving resistance sufficient for the design load requirements.
Following construction of the dock, the contractor filed an extra claim and sued both Engineer A and the municipality, initiating the dispute that led to mediation.
State changes (1)
  • began: Contractor Claim Adversarial Posture
During the mediation, the municipality brought in expert witnesses to support its case that many piles did not initially meet driving resistance requirements.
Causal-normative reasoning(confidence 0.60)
Retaining an expert witness in response to the mediated settlement is a routine litigation-support step with no independent normative charge, yet it matters because it is the causal link that produces the design basis testimony which in turn necessitates the retention of a test supervisor, showing how procedural choices can propagate further obligations without themselves being violations.
Engineer A testified that the geotechnical firm's report expected the piles to gain sufficient additional strength within 30 days to meet driving resistance requirements.
Fulfills (1)
  • Include All Relevant and Pertinent Information
Causal-normative reasoning(confidence 0.70)
Because Design Basis Testimony fulfilled the obligation to include all relevant and pertinent information and was guided by the duty to expose all technical facts, it gave the municipality a trustworthy account of the design that directly led it to retain a test supervisor to further verify performance.
The municipality retained Engineer B to supervise the driving of several test piles to test whether the piles would gain sufficient strength to meet the design calculation requirements.
Causal-normative reasoning(confidence 0.60)
Retaining a test supervisor following the design basis testimony is itself normatively neutral, but its importance lies in establishing the oversight role whose subsequent compromise, through test condition deviations attributed to Engineer B, produces pile bond disruption and deficient testimony, showing that the ethical failure originates in the supervisor's later conduct rather than in the retention decision.
Engineer A retained an independent geotechnical consultant to observe the test pile driving program.
Causal-normative reasoning(confidence 0.60)
Retaining an independent observer was guided by the duty to expose all available technical facts, and although it fulfills no explicit obligation on its own, it created the factual basis that later allowed Engineer A to be named responsible for surfacing the test deficiency testimony.
Engineer B conducted the test pile program without duplicating the original driving conditions, using a vibratory hammer, driving to different penetration depths, and dropping the hammer before blow counts commenced.
At stake (1)
  • Fact-Gathering Diligence
Causal-normative reasoning(confidence 0.65)
Test Condition Deviation carries no normative edges yet it is the direct cause of Pile Bond Disruption attributed to Engineer B, showing that even an action unlinked to explicit obligations can produce ethically significant physical harm to the test's integrity.
State changes (1)
  • began: Flawed Test Pile Conditions
The dynamic test equipment failed during the test pile driving program supervised by Engineer B, compromising the completeness and reliability of the test data.
After the 30 day set up, the driving hammer was dropped several times to start the hammer before blow counts began, which in the opinion of Engineer A's geotechnical consultant broke the pile bond and undervalued the skin friction value reported by Engineer B's tests.
Despite the deficiencies in the test program, the test piles after a 30 day set demonstrated the increase in set up strength over time, confirming the premise of Engineer A's design basis testimony.
Throughout the development of his report, Engineer B did not talk to any representative of Engineer A and made no effort to inquire from contractors, workers, or others on the job to verify or refute his theories.
At stake (1)
  • Fact-Gathering Diligence
Causal-normative reasoning(confidence 0.65)
Consultation Omission has no stated obligation attached to it, but its causal role in producing Selective Report Issuance, and subsequently the Post-Report Justification and Denial of Expert Review Opportunity, shows how a seemingly minor procedural lapse by Engineer B cascaded into a broader disservice to the client municipality.
State changes (1)
  • began: Engineer B Fact Gathering Deficiency
Engineer B chose not to examine the pile driving records, justifying the exclusion as outside the scope of work, and thereby denied himself the opportunity to present a rationale for discounting their value.
At stake (2)
  • Include All Relevant and Pertinent Information
  • Fact-Gathering Diligence
Causal-normative reasoning(confidence 0.70)
Although Records Exclusion Decision itself is not marked as fulfilling or violating any obligation, it functioned as the causal trigger for Selective Report Issuance, meaning the normative violations that followed originated from this seemingly neutral act of deciding what data to exclude.
State changes (1)
  • began: Pile Records Scope Exclusion
Engineer B issued a concluding report stating that 19 of the 90 piles did not meet the required safety factor, while omitting that the dynamic test equipment had failed, that the 19 piles had been driven to essential refusal, and that wave equation calculations indicated strength several multiples over the load requirements.
Violates (2)
  • Include All Relevant and Pertinent Information
  • Fact-Gathering Diligence
Causal-normative reasoning(confidence 0.80)
By violating the duty to include all relevant and pertinent information and the duty of fact-gathering diligence, Engineer B's Selective Report Issuance directly produced Post-Report Justification and denied the municipality a genuine expert review opportunity, showing how the initial omission compounded into downstream harm to the client's ability to make informed decisions.
State changes (1)
  • began: Engineer B Report Omissions
When queried by Engineer A after the report was issued, Engineer B offered shifting explanations, saying the driving records looked suspicious and were not believed, after previously saying the records were outside his scope of work.
Violates (1)
  • Include All Relevant and Pertinent Information
Causal-normative reasoning(confidence 0.80)
The justification offered after the report violates the duty to include all relevant and pertinent information precisely because it is causally rooted in Engineer B's earlier selective report issuance, meaning the post-hoc explanation compounds rather than corrects the original omission and further denies the municipality full access to material facts.
Engineer A's independent geotechnical consultant testified and showed that the dynamic test equipment had failed and that the test piles were not driven to the required depth of penetration.
Fulfills (1)
  • Include All Relevant and Pertinent Information
Causal-normative reasoning(confidence 0.70)
Test Deficiency Testimony fulfilled the duty to include all relevant and pertinent information and was guided by the commitment to exposing all technical facts, so its occurrence, triggered by the test equipment failure, ensured that the shortcomings of the test were not concealed despite the engineers' shared responsibility for the failure.
State changes (1)
  • began: Flawed Test Pile Conditions
Engineer A and the municipality settled the contractor's extra claim through mediation and shared the $300,000 settlement cost.
Causal-normative reasoning(confidence 0.60)
Although the settlement decision itself carries no explicit normative violation, it is the pivot point triggered by the contractor's lawsuit that sets in motion the municipality's need for expert testimony, so its neutrality reflects a procedural response whose ethical weight is deferred to the downstream retention and testimony actions it causes.
Narrative (4 main characters)
View Extraction
Opening Context

Written in second person from the engineer's point of view, so you read the case as the professional experienced it. Underlined names link to the character's profile below.

You are Engineer B, retained by a municipality to supervise the driving of test piles as part of a dispute over a dock foundation originally designed by Engineer A on a system of 90 piles. The dispute arose after a contractor filed an extra claim against both Engineer A and the municipality, which was settled through mediation with a shared payment of $300,000. During that mediation, an expert testified that pile driving records showed many piles failed to meet driving resistance requirements at initial driving, while Engineer A maintained that the geotechnical firm's report anticipated the piles would gain sufficient strength within 30 days. You were brought in afterward to test this claim by driving several test piles, using a vibratory hammer, while an independent geotechnical consultant retained by Engineer A observed. That consultant later testified that your dynamic test equipment failed during the test and that the test piles were not driven to the same penetration depth needed to form the plug present in the original piles. You are now preparing your report and must decide what to include and how to gather the facts underlying your conclusions.

Main characters (4)

Each card shows the roles a person holds and the tensions those roles raise for them. A single person may carry several roles in the case, and a tension between obligations can implicate more than one person at once. Click Show all tensions for the full list.

Engineer A Roles in this case: Design EngineerOn-Site Representative

Guided by: Objectivity in Forensic Opinion, Objectivity in Adversarial Setting, Client Service Loyalty in Report

Engineer B's obligation to remain objective in analyzing forensic evidence is in tension with the risk of selectively using data that favors the Municipality's litigation position, since acting as an expert witness for a paying client creates incentive to emphasize confirming data and downplay contradictory findings from the Geotechnical Consultant Test Observer or Engineer A's on-site records.

Attaches to role: Design Engineer

Engineer B's duty to serve the Municipality Client's interests as an expert witness can conflict with the duty to report all findings completely and impartially, particularly when full disclosure of test results might weaken the Municipality's claim against the Contractor Claimant or implicate the Geotechnical Firm Report Author's earlier work.

Attaches to role: On-Site Representative
Engineer B Roles in this case: Forensic Test Engineer
Municipality Expert Roles in this case: Witness

Engineer B's obligation to remain objective in analyzing forensic evidence is in tension with the risk of selectively using data that favors the Municipality's litigation position, since acting as an expert witness for a paying client creates incentive to emphasize confirming data and downplay contradictory findings from the Geotechnical Consultant Test Observer or Engineer A's on-site records.

Engineer B's duty to provide a complete forensic report conflicts with the constraint against omitting material facts, since pressure from the Municipality Client to support its position in the contractor dispute could tempt Engineer B to leave out test observations or geotechnical data unfavorable to that position, even though completeness requires disclosing all relevant findings regardless of whom they favor.

Municipality Client

Engineer B's duty to provide a complete forensic report conflicts with the constraint against omitting material facts, since pressure from the Municipality Client to support its position in the contractor dispute could tempt Engineer B to leave out test observations or geotechnical data unfavorable to that position, even though completeness requires disclosing all relevant findings regardless of whom they favor.

Engineer B's duty to serve the Municipality Client's interests as an expert witness can conflict with the duty to report all findings completely and impartially, particularly when full disclosure of test results might weaken the Municipality's claim against the Contractor Claimant or implicate the Geotechnical Firm Report Author's earlier work.

Other people involved in the case but not central to the opening narrative.

Engineer B's obligation to remain objective in analyzing forensic evidence is in tension with the risk of selectively using data that favors the Municipality's litigation position, since acting as an expert witness for a paying client creates incentive to emphasize confirming data and downplay contradictory findings from the Geotechnical Consultant Test Observer or Engineer A's on-site records.

Engineer B's duty to provide a complete forensic report conflicts with the constraint against omitting material facts, since pressure from the Municipality Client to support its position in the contractor dispute could tempt Engineer B to leave out test observations or geotechnical data unfavorable to that position, even though completeness requires disclosing all relevant findings regardless of whom they favor.

Engineer B's obligation to remain objective in analyzing forensic evidence is in tension with the risk of selectively using data that favors the Municipality's litigation position, since acting as an expert witness for a paying client creates incentive to emphasize confirming data and downplay contradictory findings from the Geotechnical Consultant Test Observer or Engineer A's on-site records.

Engineer B's duty to serve the Municipality Client's interests as an expert witness can conflict with the duty to report all findings completely and impartially, particularly when full disclosure of test results might weaken the Municipality's claim against the Contractor Claimant or implicate the Geotechnical Firm Report Author's earlier work.

Engineer B's duty to provide a complete forensic report conflicts with the constraint against omitting material facts, since pressure from the Municipality Client to support its position in the contractor dispute could tempt Engineer B to leave out test observations or geotechnical data unfavorable to that position, even though completeness requires disclosing all relevant findings regardless of whom they favor.

Engineer B's duty to serve the Municipality Client's interests as an expert witness can conflict with the duty to report all findings completely and impartially, particularly when full disclosure of test results might weaken the Municipality's claim against the Contractor Claimant or implicate the Geotechnical Firm Report Author's earlier work.

The Board’s deliberation

How the Board of Ethical Review resolved the case, verbatim from its published conclusions.

It was unethical for Engineer B to issue his report without mentioning the failed operation of the testing equipment.
It was unethical for Engineer B to not communicate with any representative of Engineer A about the project.
It was unethical for Engineer B to not communicate with the contractor’s supervisor and workers who were on the job during construction.
It was unethical for Engineer B to issue his report without mentioning that the 19 piles questioned had, according to the driving records, met refusal.
Opening States (10)
Pile Capacity Expert Disagreement Engineer B Report Omissions Engineer B Fact Gathering Deficiency Pile Records Scope Exclusion Flawed Test Pile Conditions Available On-Site Representatives Engineer B Client Defense Bias Incomplete Report Misdirection Risk Contractor Claim Adversarial Posture Report Precludes Expert Review
Summary
  • An engineer serving as a forensic expert must disclose all material facts, including equipment malfunctions, regardless of whether those facts help or hurt the paying client's position.
  • Being retained and compensated by a party in a dispute does not excuse an engineer from maintaining objectivity and completeness in technical reporting.
  • Omission of unfavorable or inconvenient data, such as failed test equipment, constitutes a breach of professional duty even if no data was affirmatively falsified.

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3