Successor Engineer Post-Review Contract Acceptance Permissibility Invoked By Engineer B
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/126#Successor_Engineer_Post-Review_Contract_Acceptance_Permissibility_Invoked_By_Engineer_B
Properties
Instance of
SuccessorEngineerPost-ReviewContractAcceptancePermissibilityPrinciple
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#SuccessorEngineerPost-ReviewContractAcceptancePermissibilityPrinciple
Applied to
Engineer B's acceptance of the franchiser's design engineering contract after Engineer A's contract expiration
Balancing with
At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right
Fairness in Professional Competition
Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement in Peer Review
Concrete expression
Engineer B accepted the franchiser's design engineering contract after Engineer A's contract expired; this was permissible because: (1) Engineer B had properly notified Engineer A of the review engagement and its preliminary results; (2) the franchiser had independently decided not to renew Engineer A's contract before retaining Engineer B; and (3) there is no indication Engineer B exploited the review access to improperly solicit the successor role
Confidence
0.87
Importance
high
Interpretation
The review-to-succession transition was ethically permissible because proper notification was given and the client's decision to transition was independently motivated; the key ethical safeguard — incumbent notification — was satisfied
Invoked by
Engineer B Confidentiality-Directed Successor Design Engineer
Tension resolution
Because Engineer B fulfilled the notification obligation and the client independently initiated the transition, the succession was ethically permissible; the review access was not improperly exploited
Source Evidence
Source text
Several weeks later, Engineer A's agreement with the franchiser expires and the franchiser retains Engineer B as its design engineer.
Text references
Engineer B reviews the design information the following week and following his review, notifies Engineer A of his relationship with franchiser and the preliminary results of his review
Several weeks later, Engineer A's agreement with the franchiser expires and the franchiser retains Engineer B as its design 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 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:Successor_Engineer_Post-Review_Contract_Acceptance_Permissibility_Invoked_By_Engineer_B a proeth:SuccessorEngineerPost-ReviewContractAcceptancePermissibilityPrinciple,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Successor Engineer Post-Review Contract Acceptance Permissibility Invoked By Engineer B" ;
proeth:appliedto "Engineer B's acceptance of the franchiser's design engineering contract after Engineer A's contract expiration" ;
proeth:balancingwith "At-Will Employment Symmetry and Engineer Mobility Right",
"Fairness in Professional Competition",
"Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement in Peer Review" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer B accepted the franchiser's design engineering contract after Engineer A's contract expired; this was permissible because: (1) Engineer B had properly notified Engineer A of the review engagement and its preliminary results; (2) the franchiser had independently decided not to renew Engineer A's contract before retaining Engineer B; and (3) there is no indication Engineer B exploited the review access to improperly solicit the successor role" ;
proeth:confidence "0.87" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "126" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T10:13:13.349757+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "126" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T10:13:13.349757+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "The review-to-succession transition was ethically permissible because proper notification was given and the client's decision to transition was independently motivated; the key ethical safeguard — incumbent notification — was satisfied" ;
proeth:invokedby "Engineer B Confidentiality-Directed Successor Design Engineer" ;
proeth:principleclass "Successor Engineer Post-Review Contract Acceptance Permissibility Principle" ;
proeth:sourcetext "Several weeks later, Engineer A's agreement with the franchiser expires and the franchiser retains Engineer B as its design engineer." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "Because Engineer B fulfilled the notification obligation and the client independently initiated the transition, the succession was ethically permissible; the review access was not improperly exploited" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer B reviews the design information the following week and following his review, notifies Engineer A of his relationship with franchiser and the preliminary results of his review",
"Several weeks later, Engineer A's agreement with the franchiser expires and the franchiser retains Engineer B as its design engineer" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 126 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T10:31:55.144297"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 126 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
126
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
facts
First discovered
2026-03-01T10:13:13.349757+00:00
First case
126
Generated
2026-03-01T10:13:13.349757+00:00
Attributed to
Case 126 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T10:31:55.144297
Generated by
ProEthica Case 126 Extraction