DP6
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/100#DP6
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP6
Decision question
Should Engineer A treat his pavement-only scope of work as justifying discretionary, verbal-only disclosure of the incidentally observed wall defect, or as defining only his analytical investigation duty — leaving intact a non-scope-conditional written documentation obligation to ensure the safety concern is accessible to responsible public authorities?
Focus
Engineer A must determine whether his scope of work — limited to pavement inspection — legitimately reduces his wall defect reporting obligation to discretionary, or whether the public welfare paramount principle imposes a non-scope-conditional documentation obligation that requires him to produce a written record of the incidentally discovered life-safety hazard regardless of contractual boundaries, particularly given the confirmed fatality context.
Option1
Accept that the pavement-only scope of work reduces the wall defect reporting obligation to discretionary, permitting verbal-only disclosure through the client chain and omission from the final report, on the grounds that Engineer A was not retained to assess structural conditions and his observation was speculative and incidental.
Option2
Recognize that scope of work defines Engineer A's analytical investigation duty — he need not conduct a structural assessment — but does not define the ceiling of his written documentation obligation, requiring him to produce a written record of the incidentally observed life-safety hazard accessible to responsible public authorities regardless of whether it appears in the pavement-focused final report.
Option3
Include the wall defect observation in the final report with a formal recommendation that VWX or the public agency commission a separate structural assessment within an expanded scope, treating the incidental discovery as triggering a professional obligation to flag the need for expert evaluation rather than to conduct that evaluation personally.
Role
Engineer
TTL
@prefix case100: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/100#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix proeth-cases: <http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#> .
@prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
case100:DP6 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP6" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP6" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer A treat his pavement-only scope of work as justifying discretionary, verbal-only disclosure of the incidentally observed wall defect, or as defining only his analytical investigation duty — leaving intact a non-scope-conditional written documentation obligation to ensure the safety concern is accessible to responsible public authorities?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer A must determine whether his scope of work — limited to pavement inspection — legitimately reduces his wall defect reporting obligation to discretionary, or whether the public welfare paramount principle imposes a non-scope-conditional documentation obligation that requires him to produce a written record of the incidentally discovered life-safety hazard regardless of contractual boundaries, particularly given the confirmed fatality context." ;
proeth:option1 "Accept that the pavement-only scope of work reduces the wall defect reporting obligation to discretionary, permitting verbal-only disclosure through the client chain and omission from the final report, on the grounds that Engineer A was not retained to assess structural conditions and his observation was speculative and incidental." ;
proeth:option2 "Recognize that scope of work defines Engineer A's analytical investigation duty — he need not conduct a structural assessment — but does not define the ceiling of his written documentation obligation, requiring him to produce a written record of the incidentally observed life-safety hazard accessible to responsible public authorities regardless of whether it appears in the pavement-focused final report." ;
proeth:option3 "Include the wall defect observation in the final report with a formal recommendation that VWX or the public agency commission a separate structural assessment within an expanded scope, treating the incidental discovery as triggering a professional obligation to flag the need for expert evaluation rather than to conduct that evaluation personally." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T09:05:10.683992"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 100 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-03-01T09:05:10.683992
Generated by
ProEthica Case 100 Extraction