Engineer A Precedent-Distinguishable Reporting Obligation
S · State
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/150#Engineer_A_Precedent-Distinguishable_Reporting_Obligation
Properties
Instance of
Precedent-DistinguishableSafetyReportingObligationState
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#Precedent-DistinguishableSafetyReportingObligationState
Active period
From the Board's comparative analysis of BER 76-4 and the present case through the Board's determination of the appropriate ethical response
Affected parties
Engineer A
MedTech
NSPE Board of Ethical Review
Confidence
0.85
Importance
high
Subject
Engineer A's situation as materially distinguishable from BER Case No. 76-4, requiring calibrated rather than automatic application of the precedent's external reporting conclusion
Terminated by
Board's issuance of its conclusion distinguishing the cases and prescribing a graduated internal-first response
Triggering event
Board's recognition that BER 76-4 appears analogous but differs materially on personal involvement, domain expertise, absence of public hearing, and absence of confirmed regulatory violation
Urgency level
medium
Source Evidence
Source text
In the present case, unlike the facts in BER Case No. 76-4, Engineer A is not faced with a scheduled public hearing at which he believed he had an obligation to correctly report information
Text references
Engineer A was not personally involved in the engineering decision-making process and did not have any particular expertise in the technical area involved
Engineer A's statement—which essentially amounted to a threat to the manager—was not a reasonable or ethical response to the circumstances in question
In the present case, unlike the facts in BER Case No. 76-4, Engineer A is not faced with a scheduled public hearing at which he believed he had an obligation to correctly report information
TTL
@prefix case150: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/150#> .
@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#> .
case150:Engineer_A_Precedent-Distinguishable_Reporting_Obligation a proeth:Precedent-DistinguishableSafetyReportingObligationState,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer A Precedent-Distinguishable Reporting Obligation" ;
proeth:activeperiod "From the Board's comparative analysis of BER 76-4 and the present case through the Board's determination of the appropriate ethical response" ;
proeth:affectedparties "Engineer A",
"MedTech",
"NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "State" ;
proeth:confidence "0.85" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "150" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "1" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T14:31:09.175896+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "150" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T14:31:09.175896+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:sourcetext "In the present case, unlike the facts in BER Case No. 76-4, Engineer A is not faced with a scheduled public hearing at which he believed he had an obligation to correctly report information" ;
proeth:stateclass "Precedent-Distinguishable Safety Reporting Obligation State" ;
proeth:subject "Engineer A's situation as materially distinguishable from BER Case No. 76-4, requiring calibrated rather than automatic application of the precedent's external reporting conclusion" ;
proeth:terminatedby "Board's issuance of its conclusion distinguishing the cases and prescribing a graduated internal-first response" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer A was not personally involved in the engineering decision-making process and did not have any particular expertise in the technical area involved",
"Engineer A's statement—which essentially amounted to a threat to the manager—was not a reasonable or ethical response to the circumstances in question",
"In the present case, unlike the facts in BER Case No. 76-4, Engineer A is not faced with a scheduled public hearing at which he believed he had an obligation to correctly report information" ;
proeth:triggeringevent "Board's recognition that BER 76-4 appears analogous but differs materially on personal involvement, domain expertise, absence of public hearing, and absence of confirmed regulatory violation" ;
proeth:urgencylevel "medium" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 150 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T14:52:22.187954"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 150 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
150
Discovered in pass
1
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-02-28T14:31:09.175896+00:00
First case
150
Generated
2026-02-28T14:31:09.175896+00:00
Attributed to
Case 150 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-28T14:52:22.187954
Generated by
ProEthica Case 150 Extraction