DP7
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/126#DP7
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP7
Decision question
Should Engineer B notify Engineer A of his relationship with the franchiser and the ongoing peer review despite the franchiser's explicit confidentiality instruction, and if so, at what point relative to conducting the review?
Focus
Engineer B's Peer Review Notification and Consent Fulfillment: Whether Engineer B should notify Engineer A of the new engagement relationship and the ongoing peer review before, during, or after conducting the review, despite the franchiser's explicit confidentiality instruction.
Option1
Inform Engineer A of the new engagement relationship and the impending peer review prior to beginning any design review work, treating the notification obligation as a procedural prerequisite that the franchiser's confidentiality instruction cannot override, and limiting disclosure to the existence of the engagement rather than any preliminary findings.
Option2
Conduct the peer review as instructed by the franchiser, then notify Engineer A of both the engagement relationship and the preliminary review results after the review is complete, reasoning that some notification — even post-review — partially honors the peer review obligation while minimizing disruption to the franchiser's transition process.
Option3
Refuse to accept the peer review engagement unless the franchiser grants permission to notify Engineer A prior to conducting the review, conditioning acceptance on the franchiser's agreement to a procedurally compliant notification arrangement and thereby placing responsibility for any resulting delay on the party who imposed the ethically incompatible instruction.
Role
Engineer
TTL
@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:DP7 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP7" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP7" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer B notify Engineer A of his relationship with the franchiser and the ongoing peer review despite the franchiser's explicit confidentiality instruction, and if so, at what point relative to conducting the review?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer B's Peer Review Notification and Consent Fulfillment: Whether Engineer B should notify Engineer A of the new engagement relationship and the ongoing peer review before, during, or after conducting the review, despite the franchiser's explicit confidentiality instruction." ;
proeth:option1 "Inform Engineer A of the new engagement relationship and the impending peer review prior to beginning any design review work, treating the notification obligation as a procedural prerequisite that the franchiser's confidentiality instruction cannot override, and limiting disclosure to the existence of the engagement rather than any preliminary findings." ;
proeth:option2 "Conduct the peer review as instructed by the franchiser, then notify Engineer A of both the engagement relationship and the preliminary review results after the review is complete, reasoning that some notification — even post-review — partially honors the peer review obligation while minimizing disruption to the franchiser's transition process." ;
proeth:option3 "Refuse to accept the peer review engagement unless the franchiser grants permission to notify Engineer A prior to conducting the review, conditioning acceptance on the franchiser's agreement to a procedurally compliant notification arrangement and thereby placing responsibility for any resulting delay on the party who imposed the ethically incompatible instruction." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T10:52:09.304061"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 126 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-03-01T10:52:09.304061
Generated by
ProEthica Case 126 Extraction