DP5

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

DP5

Should the Board treat its modification of BER Case 86-2 as establishing a stable technology-neutral framework for all future design-generation tools — including AI systems that autonomously produce engineering calculations — or should the Board articulate a technology-sensitive limit that conditions the ethical validity of sealing on the engineer's capacity to independently verify the tool's substantive engineering judgments?

The Board's modification of the stricter BER Case 86-2 standard — which had required detailed personal review before sealing — raises the question of how the Precedent Reconciliation Obligation and the Ethics Code Prevailing Practice Consonance principle should be balanced when evolving technology renders earlier factual assumptions obsolete. This decision point also encompasses the forward-looking question of whether the same meta-principle that justified modifying BER Case 86-2 for CADD will require further modification as AI-assisted design systems increasingly generate autonomous engineering judgments rather than merely automating drafting.

Establish that the technology-neutral framework contains an implicit technology-sensitive limit — the engineer's capacity to exercise genuine direction and control over the tool's outputs — such that the ethical permissibility of sealing AI- or CADD-generated documents is always contingent on the engineer's ability to independently verify the tool's substantive engineering judgments, with the standard requiring re-examination as autonomous design-generation capabilities advance.

Treat the technology-neutral framework as a stable, forward-applicable standard for all design-generation tools including AI systems, on the grounds that the direction-and-control requirement already captures the necessary ethical constraint and that imposing additional technology-specific standards would create unpredictable and unenforceable obligations as technology evolves.

Resolve the CADD question under the modified BER Case 86-2 framework without articulating forward-looking principles for AI-assisted design systems, leaving the ethical treatment of autonomous design-generation tools to future case-by-case analysis as specific AI applications present concrete ethical questions to the Board.

BER Ethics Board — Precedent Modification and Forward-Looking Standard Setting