DP3
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#DP3
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP3
Decision question
Should the board treat Engineer F's adjudicated contractor license revocation as categorically requiring disclosure — distinguishing it from the mere allegation Engineer A faced in BER 97-11 — or apply the same prudential weighing standard that permitted Engineer A to exercise discretion about disclosure?
Focus
The board must determine how the Allegation-Adjudication Distinction drawn from BER Case 97-11 — where Engineer A faced only a pending ethics complaint and was not categorically required to disclose — applies to calibrate Engineer F's disclosure threshold, given that Engineer F's contractor license revocation was a formally adjudicated finding rather than an unresolved allegation.
Option1
Treat the formally adjudicated contractor license revocation as categorically requiring disclosure on the employment application, distinguishing it from BER 97-11's unresolved allegation on the grounds that adjudicative finality eliminates the epistemic uncertainty that justified Engineer A's prudential weighing.
Option2
Extend the same prudential weighing standard applied to Engineer A in BER 97-11 to Engineer F's situation, permitting Engineer F to weigh the risks and benefits of disclosing the contractor license revocation rather than imposing a categorical obligation, on the grounds that the contractor domain is sufficiently distinct from PE practice.
Option3
Adopt a graduated disclosure threshold that requires disclosure when the adjudicated finding arises in a safety-critical domain proximate to PE practice (as here, fire protection), but permits prudential weighing when the adjudicated finding arises in a domain genuinely remote from engineering obligations, thereby calibrating the obligation to both adjudicative finality and domain relevance.
Role
Engineer
TTL
@prefix case148: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/148#> .
@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#> .
case148:DP3 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP3" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP3" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should the board treat Engineer F's adjudicated contractor license revocation as categorically requiring disclosure — distinguishing it from the mere allegation Engineer A faced in BER 97-11 — or apply the same prudential weighing standard that permitted Engineer A to exercise discretion about disclosure?" ;
proeth:focus "The board must determine how the Allegation-Adjudication Distinction drawn from BER Case 97-11 — where Engineer A faced only a pending ethics complaint and was not categorically required to disclose — applies to calibrate Engineer F's disclosure threshold, given that Engineer F's contractor license revocation was a formally adjudicated finding rather than an unresolved allegation." ;
proeth:option1 "Treat the formally adjudicated contractor license revocation as categorically requiring disclosure on the employment application, distinguishing it from BER 97-11's unresolved allegation on the grounds that adjudicative finality eliminates the epistemic uncertainty that justified Engineer A's prudential weighing." ;
proeth:option2 "Extend the same prudential weighing standard applied to Engineer A in BER 97-11 to Engineer F's situation, permitting Engineer F to weigh the risks and benefits of disclosing the contractor license revocation rather than imposing a categorical obligation, on the grounds that the contractor domain is sufficiently distinct from PE practice." ;
proeth:option3 "Adopt a graduated disclosure threshold that requires disclosure when the adjudicated finding arises in a safety-critical domain proximate to PE practice (as here, fire protection), but permits prudential weighing when the adjudicated finding arises in a domain genuinely remote from engineering obligations, thereby calibrating the obligation to both adjudicative finality and domain relevance." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T23:27:29.020002"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 148 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-28T23:27:29.020002
Generated by
ProEthica Case 148 Extraction