DP3

DecisionPoint
http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint

DP3

Should Engineer A report the wall defect finding independently to an external public authority immediately after receiving the suppression instruction, defer independent reporting pending a defined monitoring period for corrective action, or refrain from independent external reporting entirely given his subconsultant status and the speculative nature of his observation?

Engineer A, having verbally reported the wall defect through the client chain and received a suppression instruction, must decide whether to report the finding independently to an external public authority — immediately upon receiving the suppression instruction, after a defined monitoring period during which he seeks written confirmation of corrective action, or not at all given his subconsultant status and the speculative nature of his observation.

Decline to report to any external public authority, relying on the public agency's receipt of the verbal report through VWX as sufficient notification and passively monitoring whether corrective action is taken within a reasonable period.

Defer independent external reporting for a defined short period while affirmatively seeking written confirmation from VWX that the public agency has initiated corrective action, with a commitment to escalate directly to a relevant regulatory or safety authority if written confirmation is not received within that period.

Report the wall defect observation directly to a relevant regulatory or safety authority immediately upon receiving the suppression instruction, on the grounds that the confirmed fatality and the client chain's demonstrated disposition toward non-disclosure independently trigger the mandatory escalation obligation without a monitoring period.

Engineer