DP4

@prefix case126: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/126#> . @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#> . @prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> . case126:DP4 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "DP4" ; proeth:decisionPointId "DP4" ; proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer B notify Engineer A of the new engagement and peer review despite the franchiser's explicit confidentiality instruction, or comply with the client's instruction and proceed with the review without disclosing the relationship to Engineer A?" ; proeth:focus "Engineer B: Peer Review Notification vs. Faithful Agent Compliance When Client Instructs Concealment" ; proeth:option1 "Inform Engineer A of the new engagement relationship and the impending peer review prior to beginning the design review, treating the Section III.8.a notification obligation as a non-waivable professional duty that the franchiser's confidentiality instruction cannot override." ; proeth:option2 "Follow the franchiser's explicit instruction, conduct the peer review without disclosing the engagement to Engineer A, and treat the faithful agent duty as binding on the scope of permissible disclosure throughout the engagement." ; proeth:option3 "Decline to accept the engagement unless the franchiser grants permission to notify Engineer A prior to the review, thereby preserving compliance with both the peer notification obligation and the faithful agent duty by placing responsibility for the conflict on the party who imposed the incompatible instruction." ; proeth:roleLabel "Engineer" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T10:52:09.306877"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 126 Extraction" .