DP6

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

DP6

Has Engineer A's credential investigation produced a sufficient objective basis to activate the peer competence challenge obligation and proceed with confronting Engineer B, or must Engineer A conduct further investigation before concluding that reasonable doubt about Engineer B's structural competence is warranted?

Engineer A must determine whether his credential investigation of Engineer B — which revealed a chemical engineering degree and no apparent subsequent training in foundation design — constitutes a sufficient objective basis to activate the peer competence challenge obligation, or whether epistemic caution requires further investigation before concluding that reasonable doubt exists. The tension is between the incomplete situational knowledge restraint that cautions against acting on unverified assumptions and the peer competence challenge obligation that activates upon reasonable doubt grounded in objective evidence.

Treat the combination of Engineer B's chemical engineering degree and absence of any apparent subsequent training in foundation design as a sufficient objective basis for reasonable doubt, and proceed to directly confront Engineer B and recommend withdrawal from the structural footing assignment.

Defer the peer competence challenge pending additional investigation — including direct inquiry to Engineer B about any post-degree structural training, review of Engineer B's project history, and consultation with the contractor about the basis for Engineer B's retention — before concluding that a reasonable basis for challenge exists.

Rather than unilaterally concluding that reasonable doubt exists, formally request that Engineer B provide documentation of his structural engineering qualifications — including any post-degree training, relevant project experience, or continuing education — before deciding whether to activate the peer competence challenge obligation.

Engineer A