DP2
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#DP2
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP2
Decision question
When Engineer A seals CADD-produced documents, must Engineer A conduct a detailed independent review of the CADD output sufficient to assume full technical responsibility, or is a review calibrated to standard professional practice adequate?
Focus
Engineer A signed and sealed documents that were prepared using CADD technology. The question is whether the act of sealing those documents constituted a proper assumption of full responsibility for their content, including the accuracy of the CADD-generated output.
Option1
Review CADD-produced documents using the same professional judgment and verification standards applied to conventionally drafted documents, treating CADD as a production tool whose outputs are subject to normal engineering review.
Option2
Supplement standard review with a systematic check of CADD-specific outputs such as coordinate accuracy, layer assignments, and automated calculations, recognizing that CADD errors may not surface through ordinary engineering review.
Option3
Before sealing, require a second engineer to independently verify the CADD output against design intent, treating the CADD production step as introducing a category of risk that warrants a separate verification layer.
Role
Engineer
TTL
@prefix case120: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/120#> .
@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#> .
case120:DP2 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP2" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP2" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "When Engineer A seals CADD-produced documents, must Engineer A conduct a detailed independent review of the CADD output sufficient to assume full technical responsibility, or is a review calibrated to standard professional practice adequate?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer A signed and sealed documents that were prepared using CADD technology. The question is whether the act of sealing those documents constituted a proper assumption of full responsibility for their content, including the accuracy of the CADD-generated output." ;
proeth:option1 "Review CADD-produced documents using the same professional judgment and verification standards applied to conventionally drafted documents, treating CADD as a production tool whose outputs are subject to normal engineering review." ;
proeth:option2 "Supplement standard review with a systematic check of CADD-specific outputs such as coordinate accuracy, layer assignments, and automated calculations, recognizing that CADD errors may not surface through ordinary engineering review." ;
proeth:option3 "Before sealing, require a second engineer to independently verify the CADD output against design intent, treating the CADD production step as introducing a category of risk that warrants a separate verification layer." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer" ;
prov:wasAttributedTo "claude-sonnet-4-6" ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 120 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Attributed to
claude-sonnet-4-6
Generated by
ProEthica Case 120 Extraction