DP2

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

DP2

Should the testifying engineer present cost and demand projections as definitive engineering conclusions, or explicitly acknowledge to the legislative committee that the opinion rests on estimates of indeterminate factors subject to significant variance?

Both engineers are testifying on a large, complex water-power infrastructure project whose engineering conclusions depend heavily on indeterminate estimates — future population growth, water demand projections, construction cost variances, and equipment efficiency trends. Each engineer must decide whether to present these estimate-dependent conclusions as settled engineering fact or to transparently acknowledge the epistemic uncertainty underlying the analysis.

Deliver cost projections, demand forecasts, and efficiency comparisons as firm engineering findings without qualifying their estimate-based character, maximizing the persuasive force of the testimony in support of the client's preferred solution.

Explicitly inform the legislative committee that the engineering opinion rests on estimates of indeterminate factors — including construction cost by each method, population growth trajectories, and future equipment efficiency — and present the range of uncertainty so that the legislature can properly calibrate the evidentiary weight of the testimony.

Disclose the estimate-based character of the analysis and additionally identify the specific threshold conditions — e.g., higher-than-projected population growth, lower construction cost differentials — under which the opposing engineer's solution would become the more efficient choice, fulfilling the competing-public-goods balanced advisory obligation.

Retained Legislative Witness Engineer (State Power Commission PE or Private Power Company PE)