DP13
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/109#DP13
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP13
Decision question
Should Engineer A proactively disclose the competence gap to supervisors before any formal certification request is made and, after refusing, take affirmative steps including written documentation, expert referral, and escalation — or is timely refusal at the point of request sufficient to discharge the ethical obligation?
Focus
Having refused or anticipating refusal of the certification, Engineer A must decide whether to proactively disclose the competence gap to supervisors before a formal certification request arrives, and what affirmative post-refusal steps — documentation, escalation, expert referral, and institutional advocacy — are required to discharge the full scope of ethical obligations beyond the act of refusal itself.
Option1
Disclose the competence gap to supervisors immediately upon recognizing that arms storage certification falls within the Division Chief role's scope — before any formal request arrives — and, after refusing the certification, formally document the refusal, refer a qualified expert, escalate to higher authority, and communicate the institutional training fund decision as a causal factor in the gap.
Option2
Wait until the Army official formally requests the certification, then refuse on competence grounds and refer the matter to a qualified expert in Army physical security regulations, without proactive prior disclosure or formal written documentation of the institutional training fund issue.
Option3
Refuse the certification request and create a written record of the refusal for personal professional protection, but defer escalation and expert referral to the Army official's discretion, reasoning that identifying a replacement certifier falls within the requesting authority's organizational responsibility rather than the refusing engineer's.
Role
Engineer
TTL
@prefix case109: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/109#> .
@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#> .
case109:DP13 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP13" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP13" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer A proactively disclose the competence gap to supervisors before any formal certification request is made and, after refusing, take affirmative steps including written documentation, expert referral, and escalation — or is timely refusal at the point of request sufficient to discharge the ethical obligation?" ;
proeth:focus "Having refused or anticipating refusal of the certification, Engineer A must decide whether to proactively disclose the competence gap to supervisors before a formal certification request arrives, and what affirmative post-refusal steps — documentation, escalation, expert referral, and institutional advocacy — are required to discharge the full scope of ethical obligations beyond the act of refusal itself." ;
proeth:option1 "Disclose the competence gap to supervisors immediately upon recognizing that arms storage certification falls within the Division Chief role's scope — before any formal request arrives — and, after refusing the certification, formally document the refusal, refer a qualified expert, escalate to higher authority, and communicate the institutional training fund decision as a causal factor in the gap." ;
proeth:option2 "Wait until the Army official formally requests the certification, then refuse on competence grounds and refer the matter to a qualified expert in Army physical security regulations, without proactive prior disclosure or formal written documentation of the institutional training fund issue." ;
proeth:option3 "Refuse the certification request and create a written record of the refusal for personal professional protection, but defer escalation and expert referral to the Army official's discretion, reasoning that identifying a replacement certifier falls within the requesting authority's organizational responsibility rather than the refusing engineer's." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T08:19:22.977295"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 109 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-03-01T08:19:22.977295
Generated by
ProEthica Case 109 Extraction