DP1

@prefix case103: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/103#> . @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#> . case103:DP1 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "DP1" ; proeth:decisionPointId "DP1" ; proeth:decisionQuestion "Should the engineer apply heightened independent scrutiny when approving plans the engineer personally prepared, or treat self-review as equivalent to reviewing work produced by another party?" ; proeth:focus "The part-time city engineer both prepares and approves plans and specifications for city projects, creating a self-review situation. The core question is whether the engineer can fulfill the safety plan approval obligation with adequate objectivity when reviewing work the engineer personally designed." ; proeth:option1 "Consciously adopt a more rigorous and detached review posture when approving personally prepared plans, explicitly checking each element as if it were submitted by an outside party and documenting the basis for approval." ; proeth:option2 "Apply the same technical review protocol used for any plan submission, relying on professional competence and experience to catch errors without distinguishing between self-prepared and externally prepared documents." ; proeth:option3 "For plans involving significant public safety implications, request informal peer review from a qualified colleague before issuing formal approval, while retaining final approval authority as city engineer." ; proeth:roleLabel "Engineer" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-05-27T03:03:48.381971"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasAttributedTo "claude-sonnet-4-6" ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 103 Extraction" .