Engineer B Collegial Notification Refusal
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/15#Engineer_B_Collegial_Notification_Refusal
Definition
Engineer B correctly declined to conduct the peer review when the owner instructed that Engineer A not be informed of the review, invoking the professional obligation that engineers may not review a colleague's work for the same client without the colleague's knowledge.
Properties
Instance of
CollegialNotificationPrinciple
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#CollegialNotificationPrinciple
Applied to
Peer review of Engineer A's tower plans
Balancing with
Client Loyalty Limits
Confidentiality of Professional Review
Concrete expression
Engineer B correctly declined to conduct the peer review when the owner instructed that Engineer A not be informed of the review, invoking the professional obligation that engineers may not review a colleague's work for the same client without the colleague's knowledge.
Confidence
0.92
Interpretation
Professional Obligation III.7.a operates as a precondition on accepting peer review assignments, not merely a preference, making Engineer B's refusal ethically required rather than merely permissible.
Tension resolution
Collegial notification obligation prevailed over client instruction to maintain secrecy, requiring the owner to notify Engineer A before the review could proceed.
Match Confidence
0.0
Matches Existing
false
Synthesis Literal
appliedTo
balancingWith
concreteExpression
confidence
interpretation
principleClass
tensionResolution
textReferences
Relationships
invokedBy
Agent Engineer B
Source Evidence
Text references
Engineer B was completely correct in declining an assignment to conduct a peer review of Engineer A's work subject to an instruction not to disclose the peer review to Engineer A.
Engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.
Source text
Engineer B was completely correct in declining an assignment to conduct a peer review of Engineer A's work subject to an instruction not to disclose the peer review to Engineer A.
TTL
@prefix case15: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/15#> .
@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#> .
case15:Engineer_B_Collegial_Notification_Refusal a proeth:CollegialNotificationPrinciple,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer B Collegial Notification Refusal" ;
proeth-core:invokedBy case15:Agent_Engineer_B ;
proeth:appliedTo "Peer review of Engineer A's tower plans" ;
proeth:balancingWith "Client Loyalty Limits",
"Confidentiality of Professional Review" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteExpression "Engineer B correctly declined to conduct the peer review when the owner instructed that Engineer A not be informed of the review, invoking the professional obligation that engineers may not review a colleague's work for the same client without the colleague's knowledge." ;
proeth:confidence "0.92" ;
proeth:interpretation "Professional Obligation III.7.a operates as a precondition on accepting peer review assignments, not merely a preference, making Engineer B's refusal ethically required rather than merely permissible." ;
proeth:invokedBy "Engineer B Peer Reviewer" ;
proeth:principleClass "Collegial Notification Principle" ;
proeth:tensionResolution "Collegial notification obligation prevailed over client instruction to maintain secrecy, requiring the owner to notify Engineer A before the review could proceed." ;
proeth:textReferences "Engineer B was completely correct in declining an assignment to conduct a peer review of Engineer A's work subject to an instruction not to disclose the peer review to Engineer A.",
"Engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated." ;
proeth-prov:discoveredInCase 15 ;
proeth-prov:discoveredInPass 2 ;
proeth-prov:discoveredInSection "discussion" ;
proeth-prov:firstDiscoveredAt "2026-06-02T19:58:41.183712+00:00"^^xsd:dateTime ;
proeth-prov:firstDiscoveredInCase 15 ;
proeth-prov:matchConfidence 0.0 ;
proeth-prov:matchesExisting false ;
proeth-prov:sourceText "Engineer B was completely correct in declining an assignment to conduct a peer review of Engineer A's work subject to an instruction not to disclose the peer review to Engineer A." ;
proeth-prov:synthesisLiteral "appliedTo",
"balancingWith",
"concreteExpression",
"confidence",
"interpretation",
"principleClass",
"tensionResolution",
"textReferences" ;
rdfs:comment "Engineer B correctly declined to conduct the peer review when the owner instructed that Engineer A not be informed of the review, invoking the professional obligation that engineers may not review a colleague's work for the same client without the colleague's knowledge." ;
skos:definition "Engineer B correctly declined to conduct the peer review when the owner instructed that Engineer A not be informed of the review, invoking the professional obligation that engineers may not review a colleague's work for the same client without the colleague's knowledge." ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-06-02T19:58:41.183712+00:00"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasAttributedTo "Case 15 Extraction",
"claude-sonnet-4-6" ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 15 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
15
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-06-02T19:58:41.183712+00:00
First case
15
Generated
2026-06-02T19:58:41.183712+00:00
Attributed to
['Case 15 Extraction', 'claude-sonnet-4-6']
Generated by
ProEthica Case 15 Extraction