Private Power Company PE — Canon 24 Due-Restraint Peer Criticism
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/114#Private_Power_Company_PE_—_Canon_24_Due-Restraint_Peer_Criticism
Properties
Instance of
Canon24Due-RestraintPeerCriticismPersonality-AvoidanceObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Canon24Due-RestraintPeerCriticismPersonality-AvoidanceObligation
Case context
State Power Commission PE and Private Power Company PE each freely criticized the other's analysis and findings before the state legislative committee on dam configuration.
Compliance status
met
Confidence
0.92
Importance
high
Obligated party
Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness
Obligation statement
The Private Power Company PE, in criticizing the State Power Commission PE's engineering analysis and findings before the state legislative committee, was obligated to apply due restraint: avoiding personalities and personal abuse, basing criticism on engineering conclusions or data applications, and offering alternative conclusions (one high dam) rather than personal attacks.
Temporal scope
During legislative committee testimony
Relationships
defeasibleUnder
Engineer Advocate Appearance Before Public Body
Source Evidence
Source text
Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint.' We take this language to mean that in offering public criticism of the work of another engineer, the engineering witness will avoid personalities and abuse, and will base his criticism on the engineering conclusions or application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses.
Text references
Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint.' We take this language to mean that in offering public criticism of the work of another engineer, the engineering witness will avoid personalities and abuse, and will base his criticism on the engineering conclusions or application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses.
TTL
@prefix case114: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/114#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix proeth-core: <http://proethica.org/ontology/core#> .
@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#> .
<http://proethica.org/ontology/case/114#Private_Power_Company_PE_—_Canon_24_Due-Restraint_Peer_Criticism> a proeth:Canon24Due-RestraintPeerCriticismPersonality-AvoidanceObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Private Power Company PE — Canon 24 Due-Restraint Peer Criticism" ;
proeth-core:competesWith <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/114#Private_Power_Company_PE_—_Canon_24_Forum_Non-Interference_with_Legislative_Duty> ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case114:Engineer_Advocate_Appearance_Before_Public_Body ;
proeth:casecontext "State Power Commission PE and Private Power Company PE each freely criticized the other's analysis and findings before the state legislative committee on dam configuration." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "met" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.92" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/114#Public_Interest_Peer_Critique_Deportment_—_Canon_24_Due_Restraint_in_Legislative_Testimony> ;
proeth:discoveredincase "114" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-02T15:30:18.471831+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "114" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-02T15:30:18.471831+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Private Power Company PE Legislative Witness" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Canon 24 Due-Restraint Peer Criticism Personality-Avoidance Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "The Private Power Company PE, in criticizing the State Power Commission PE's engineering analysis and findings before the state legislative committee, was obligated to apply due restraint: avoiding personalities and personal abuse, basing criticism on engineering conclusions or data applications, and offering alternative conclusions (one high dam) rather than personal attacks." ;
proeth:sourcetext "Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint.' We take this language to mean that in offering public criticism of the work of another engineer, the engineering witness will avoid personalities and abuse, and will base his criticism on the engineering conclusions or application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses." ;
proeth:temporalscope "During legislative committee testimony" ;
proeth:textreferences "Canon 24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires that the engineer apply 'due restraint.' We take this language to mean that in offering public criticism of the work of another engineer, the engineering witness will avoid personalities and abuse, and will base his criticism on the engineering conclusions or application of engineering data by offering alternative conclusions or analyses." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 114 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T15:38:37.748518"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 114 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
114
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-02T15:30:18.471831+00:00
First case
114
Generated
2026-03-02T15:30:18.471831+00:00
Attributed to
Case 114 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-02T15:38:37.748518
Generated by
ProEthica Case 114 Extraction