Engineers A and B Citizen-Retained Route Study Objectivity Obligation
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/125#Engineers_A_and_B_Citizen-Retained_Route_Study_Objectivity_Obligation
Properties
Instance of
Citizen-RetainedRouteStudyAdversarialObjectivityObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Citizen-RetainedRouteStudyAdversarialObjectivityObligation
Case context
Engineers A and B were retained by citizens opposing route X to study alternatives and concluded route Y was superior; the ethics board assessed whether this advocacy role was consistent with professional objectivity obligations.
Compliance status
met
Confidence
0.9
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineers A and B
Obligation statement
Engineers A and B, retained by adversely affected citizens, were obligated to conduct the comparative route study objectively and completely — presenting the technical merits and demerits of both route X and route Y without partisan distortion — so that their conclusions rested on genuine engineering analysis.
Temporal scope
Throughout the route study and analysis
Relationships
defeasibleUnder
Engineers A and B Civic Advocacy Engagement
derivedFromPrinciple
Adversarial Engagement Objectivity Obligation Applied to Route Study
Source Evidence
Source text
For the purposes of this case we assume that both Engineer A and Engineer B relied on the use of facts, even if intermingled with opinion, in commenting upon the alternative routes and the preference for route Y, as required under Section 5(a).
Text references
Certainly it was entirely proper for Engineers A and B to be retained by the local citizens for the stated purpose and to offer their professional judgment and opinion as to the merits of the alternative routes.
For the purposes of this case we assume that both Engineer A and Engineer B relied on the use of facts, even if intermingled with opinion, in commenting upon the alternative routes and the preference for route Y, as required under Section 5(a).
TTL
@prefix case125: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/125#> .
@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#> .
case125:Engineers_A_and_B_Citizen-Retained_Route_Study_Objectivity_Obligation a proeth:Citizen-RetainedRouteStudyAdversarialObjectivityObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineers A and B Citizen-Retained Route Study Objectivity Obligation" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case125:Engineer_A_Citizen-Retained_Route_Study_Adversarial_Objectivity ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case125:Engineers_A_and_B_Civic_Advocacy_Engagement ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineers A and B were retained by citizens opposing route X to study alternatives and concluded route Y was superior; the ethics board assessed whether this advocacy role was consistent with professional objectivity obligations." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "met" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.9" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case125:Adversarial_Engagement_Objectivity_Obligation_Applied_to_Route_Study ;
proeth:discoveredincase "125" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-02T10:58:52.039862+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "125" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-02T10:58:52.039862+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineers A and B" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Citizen-Retained Route Study Adversarial Objectivity Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineers A and B, retained by adversely affected citizens, were obligated to conduct the comparative route study objectively and completely — presenting the technical merits and demerits of both route X and route Y without partisan distortion — so that their conclusions rested on genuine engineering analysis." ;
proeth:sourcetext "For the purposes of this case we assume that both Engineer A and Engineer B relied on the use of facts, even if intermingled with opinion, in commenting upon the alternative routes and the preference for route Y, as required under Section 5(a)." ;
proeth:temporalscope "Throughout the route study and analysis" ;
proeth:textreferences "Certainly it was entirely proper for Engineers A and B to be retained by the local citizens for the stated purpose and to offer their professional judgment and opinion as to the merits of the alternative routes.",
"For the purposes of this case we assume that both Engineer A and Engineer B relied on the use of facts, even if intermingled with opinion, in commenting upon the alternative routes and the preference for route Y, as required under Section 5(a)." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 125 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T11:07:26.790882"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 125 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
125
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-02T10:58:52.039862+00:00
First case
125
Generated
2026-03-02T10:58:52.039862+00:00
Attributed to
Case 125 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-02T11:07:26.790882
Generated by
ProEthica Case 125 Extraction