Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Invoked as Competing Obligation
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/126#Incumbent_Engineer_Knowledge_Requirement_Invoked_as_Competing_Obligation
Properties
Instance of
IncumbentEngineerKnowledgeRequirementinPeerReview
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#IncumbentEngineerKnowledgeRequirementinPeerReview
Applied to
Engineer B's review of Engineer A's pending design work while Engineer A's contract was still active
Balancing with
Client Loyalty
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
Concrete expression
Section III.8.a. imposed on Engineer B an obligation to notify Engineer A that Engineer B was reviewing Engineer A's work, reflecting the purpose of giving the incumbent engineer an opportunity to submit comments and explanations for technical decisions so the reviewing engineer has a fuller understanding of the original design
Confidence
0.92
Importance
high
Interpretation
The notification obligation exists to serve the incumbent engineer's professional dignity and to enable better-informed review, not merely as a procedural formality — but in this case it was found to be overridden by the faithful agent duty when the client had a legitimate reason for confidentiality
Invoked by
BER Case 79-7
Board of Ethical Review
Tension resolution
The Board found the faithful agent duty prevailed over the notification obligation on the specific facts, but affirmed the notification obligation remains a valid and important professional requirement
Source Evidence
Source text
Section III.8.a. admonishes engineers against reviewing the work of another engineer for the same client except with expressed knowledge of the engineer or unless the original relationship between the first engineer and the client has been terminated.
Text references
Section III.8.a. admonishes engineers against reviewing the work of another engineer for the same client except with expressed knowledge of the engineer or unless the original relationship between the first engineer and the client has been terminated.
the purpose of Section 12(a) (now Section III.8.a.) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer an opportunity to submit...comments or explanations for...technical decisions, thereby enabling the reviewing engineer to have the benefit of a fuller understanding of the technical considerations in the original design
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 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:Incumbent_Engineer_Knowledge_Requirement_Invoked_as_Competing_Obligation a proeth:IncumbentEngineerKnowledgeRequirementinPeerReview,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Invoked as Competing Obligation" ;
proeth:appliedto "Engineer B's review of Engineer A's pending design work while Engineer A's contract was still active" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Client Loyalty",
"Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Section III.8.a. imposed on Engineer B an obligation to notify Engineer A that Engineer B was reviewing Engineer A's work, reflecting the purpose of giving the incumbent engineer an opportunity to submit comments and explanations for technical decisions so the reviewing engineer has a fuller understanding of the original design" ;
proeth:confidence "0.92" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "126" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T10:19:38.255455+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "126" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T10:19:38.255455+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "The notification obligation exists to serve the incumbent engineer's professional dignity and to enable better-informed review, not merely as a procedural formality — but in this case it was found to be overridden by the faithful agent duty when the client had a legitimate reason for confidentiality" ;
proeth:invokedby "BER Case 79-7",
"Board of Ethical Review" ;
proeth:principleclass "Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement in Peer Review" ;
proeth:sourcetext "Section III.8.a. admonishes engineers against reviewing the work of another engineer for the same client except with expressed knowledge of the engineer or unless the original relationship between the first engineer and the client has been terminated." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The Board found the faithful agent duty prevailed over the notification obligation on the specific facts, but affirmed the notification obligation remains a valid and important professional requirement" ;
proeth:textreferences "Section III.8.a. admonishes engineers against reviewing the work of another engineer for the same client except with expressed knowledge of the engineer or unless the original relationship between the first engineer and the client has been terminated.",
"the purpose of Section 12(a) (now Section III.8.a.) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer an opportunity to submit...comments or explanations for...technical decisions, thereby enabling the reviewing engineer to have the benefit of a fuller understanding of the technical considerations in the original design" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 126 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T10:31:55.150090"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 126 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
126
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T10:19:38.255455+00:00
First case
126
Generated
2026-03-01T10:19:38.255455+00:00
Attributed to
Case 126 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T10:31:55.150090
Generated by
ProEthica Case 126 Extraction