DP3

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

DP3

Should Engineer A and Engineer B treat CADD competence as a self-assessed functional threshold — requiring the capacity to critically evaluate outputs and detect tool-specific errors — or should they condition sealing on externally verified proficiency standards, and must that competence obligation be periodically re-validated as CADD technology evolves?

Both Engineer A and Engineer B must determine the minimum level of CADD competence required before ethically sealing CADD-generated documents. The question encompasses not only what the competence threshold is — operational proficiency versus the capacity to critically evaluate outputs and detect tool-specific errors — but also who bears responsibility for verifying that the threshold has been met, and whether that obligation is self-assessed or externally certified.

Treat CADD competence as a self-assessed functional threshold requiring the capacity to critically evaluate outputs, detect tool-specific errors, and exercise independent professional judgment over the system's results — with the sealing engineer bearing primary responsibility for confirming that threshold is met before sealing, and re-assessing competence as the technology materially evolves.

Condition the ethical permissibility of sealing CADD-produced documents on the engineer obtaining employer or firm certification of CADD proficiency — including periodic re-certification as system versions change — on the grounds that self-assessment is insufficient to guard against competence gaps the engineer may not recognize.

Treat general professional competence in the underlying engineering discipline as sufficient for sealing CADD-produced documents, without imposing a separate tool-specific competence requirement, on the grounds that CADD is merely a drafting medium and that technology-neutrality means the competence standard should not vary by production tool.

Sealing Engineer — CADD Competence Threshold Determination