DP2
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/147#DP2
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP2
Decision question
Should Engineer A conduct an affirmative self-assessment of the competence concerns raised by Client C's complaint and allow that assessment to govern the decision to continue services for Client B, or treat the complaint's unresolved status as sufficient to proceed without further internal review?
Focus
Engineer A must independently assess whether the competence concerns raised by Client C's complaint have substantive validity — not merely procedural status — and determine whether that self-assessment should influence the decision to continue performing materially similar services for Client B without any disclosure or remediation.
Option1
Undertake a documented, honest evaluation of whether the competence concerns raised by Client C's complaint have substantive merit relative to the services being performed for Client B, and allow the outcome of that assessment — not merely the complaint's unresolved status — to govern decisions about continuing services and whether to disclose.
Option2
Treat the complaint's unresolved procedural status as sufficient grounds to continue performing services for Client B without conducting a separate internal competence review, on the basis that an unproven allegation does not constitute evidence of actual incompetence and should not disrupt an active engagement.
Option3
Without disclosing the complaint to Client B, arrange for a qualified peer to independently review the technical work being performed for Client B as a quality assurance measure, thereby addressing the substantive competence concern raised by the complaint while preserving the allegation-adjudication distinction in the client relationship.
Role
Engineer A
TTL
@prefix case147: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/147#> .
@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#> .
case147:DP2 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP2" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP2" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer A conduct an affirmative self-assessment of the competence concerns raised by Client C's complaint and allow that assessment to govern the decision to continue services for Client B, or treat the complaint's unresolved status as sufficient to proceed without further internal review?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer A must independently assess whether the competence concerns raised by Client C's complaint have substantive validity — not merely procedural status — and determine whether that self-assessment should influence the decision to continue performing materially similar services for Client B without any disclosure or remediation." ;
proeth:option1 "Undertake a documented, honest evaluation of whether the competence concerns raised by Client C's complaint have substantive merit relative to the services being performed for Client B, and allow the outcome of that assessment — not merely the complaint's unresolved status — to govern decisions about continuing services and whether to disclose." ;
proeth:option2 "Treat the complaint's unresolved procedural status as sufficient grounds to continue performing services for Client B without conducting a separate internal competence review, on the basis that an unproven allegation does not constitute evidence of actual incompetence and should not disrupt an active engagement." ;
proeth:option3 "Without disclosing the complaint to Client B, arrange for a qualified peer to independently review the technical work being performed for Client B as a quality assurance measure, thereby addressing the substantive competence concern raised by the complaint while preserving the allegation-adjudication distinction in the client relationship." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T08:05:02.436951"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 147 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-03-01T08:05:02.436951
Generated by
ProEthica Case 147 Extraction