DP2

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

DP2

Should Engineer B sign and seal CADD-produced documents prepared by supervised subordinates under Engineer B's direction and control — relying on substantive supervisory engagement and detailed review as the basis for responsible charge — or must Engineer B personally prepare or conduct line-by-line technical review of every element before sealing?

Engineer B, a registered professional engineer, signs and seals engineering documents that were produced by other personnel — registered or non-registered engineers — using a CADD system, where those personnel worked under Engineer B's direction and control. The question is whether supervisory direction and control, combined with detailed review, is sufficient to satisfy responsible charge for CADD-produced documents prepared by others, and how the BER Case 86-2 precedent bears on this determination.

Sign and seal CADD documents prepared by supervised subordinates, provided Engineer B exercised genuine upstream direction and control throughout production — setting technical parameters, reviewing intermediate outputs at key decision points, and conducting a detailed substantive review of the integrated final documents sufficient to independently attest to their technical adequacy.

Decline to seal CADD documents prepared by subordinates unless Engineer B has personally prepared the documents or conducted a line-by-line technical review of every element, applying the stricter BER Case 86-2 standard on the grounds that supervisory direction alone cannot substitute for the epistemic certainty of personal authorship.

Sign and seal CADD documents prepared by subordinates based on Engineer B's organizational supervisory authority and general project oversight, without conducting detailed technical review of the documents' content, on the grounds that the direction-and-control requirement is satisfied by the formal supervisory relationship.

Engineer B — Supervisory CADD Sealing Engineer