Engineer A Objectivity Advisory
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/14#Engineer_A_Objectivity_Advisory
Definition
Engineer A's advisory recommendation to City B was not objective because it excluded two of four approved delivery methods and recommended the method under which Engineer A could provide follow-on construction services.
Properties
Instance of
Applied to
City B wastewater project delivery method recommendation
Balancing with
Conflict of Interest Disclosure Principle
Loyalty
Concrete expression
Engineer A's advisory recommendation to City B was not objective because it excluded two of four approved delivery methods and recommended the method under which Engineer A could provide follow-on construction services.
Confidence
0.91
Interpretation
Objectivity required Engineer A to provide an impartial comparative analysis of all approved options, free from the influence of Engineer A's own competitive interest in the outcome.
Tension resolution
The objectivity obligation was not met. The recommendation reflected Engineer A's competitive interest rather than an impartial professional assessment of what delivery method best served City B's needs.
Match Confidence
0.95
Match Reasoning
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Objectivity'
Matched Ontology Label
Objectivity
Matches Existing
true
Synthesis Literal
appliedTo
balancingWith
concreteExpression
confidence
interpretation
principleClass
tensionResolution
textReferences
Relationships
invokedBy
Agent Engineer A
Source Evidence
Text references
Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build. Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
Source text
Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
TTL
@prefix case14: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/14#> .
@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 proeth-prov: <http://proethica.org/provenance#> .
@prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
case14:Engineer_A_Objectivity_Advisory a proeth:Objectivity,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer A Objectivity Advisory" ;
proeth-core:invokedBy case14:Agent_Engineer_A ;
proeth:appliedTo "City B wastewater project delivery method recommendation" ;
proeth:balancingWith "Conflict of Interest Disclosure Principle",
"Loyalty" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteExpression "Engineer A's advisory recommendation to City B was not objective because it excluded two of four approved delivery methods and recommended the method under which Engineer A could provide follow-on construction services." ;
proeth:confidence "0.91" ;
proeth:interpretation "Objectivity required Engineer A to provide an impartial comparative analysis of all approved options, free from the influence of Engineer A's own competitive interest in the outcome." ;
proeth:invokedBy "Engineer A Delivery Advisor Incomplete" ;
proeth:principleClass "Objectivity" ;
proeth:tensionResolution "The objectivity obligation was not met. The recommendation reflected Engineer A's competitive interest rather than an impartial professional assessment of what delivery method best served City B's needs." ;
proeth:textReferences "Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.",
"Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build. Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects" ;
proeth-prov:discoveredInCase 14 ;
proeth-prov:discoveredInPass 2 ;
proeth-prov:discoveredInSection "facts" ;
proeth-prov:firstDiscoveredAt "2026-06-04T08:43:46.016802+00:00"^^xsd:dateTime ;
proeth-prov:firstDiscoveredInCase 14 ;
proeth-prov:matchConfidence 0.95 ;
proeth-prov:matchReasoning "Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Objectivity'" ;
proeth-prov:matchedOntologyClass <http://proethica.org/ontology/principles#Objectivity> ;
proeth-prov:matchedOntologyLabel "Objectivity" ;
proeth-prov:matchesExisting true ;
proeth-prov:sourceText "Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options." ;
proeth-prov:synthesisLiteral "appliedTo",
"balancingWith",
"concreteExpression",
"confidence",
"interpretation",
"principleClass",
"tensionResolution",
"textReferences" ;
rdfs:comment "Engineer A's advisory recommendation to City B was not objective because it excluded two of four approved delivery methods and recommended the method under which Engineer A could provide follow-on construction services." ;
skos:definition "Engineer A's advisory recommendation to City B was not objective because it excluded two of four approved delivery methods and recommended the method under which Engineer A could provide follow-on construction services." ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-06-04T08:43:46.016802+00:00"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasAttributedTo "Case 14 Extraction",
"claude-sonnet-4-6" ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 14 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
14
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
facts
First discovered
2026-06-04T08:43:46.016802+00:00
First case
14
Generated
2026-06-04T08:43:46.016802+00:00
Attributed to
['Case 14 Extraction', 'claude-sonnet-4-6']
Generated by
ProEthica Case 14 Extraction