DP6

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

DP6

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Engineer