DP1
Individual
a3a97dd1
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/16#DP1
Properties
Parent
Decision Point Id
DP1
Decision Question
Should Engineer A formally report Engineer B to the State Board, or limit his response to a private confrontation out of friendship and compassion for Engineer B's post-stroke condition?
Focus
Following the basement structural failure, Engineer A discovers through Engineer R's independent review that Engineer B's design work contains serious errors not only in the failed portion but also in unbuilt portions of the structure. Engineer A must decide how to respond to this confirmed evidence of impaired practice by his long-time friend and structural consultant.
Option1
Report Engineer B to the State Board immediately upon confirmation of serious design errors, disclosing Engineer R's findings and the materialized structural failure to the proper authority
Option2
Meet privately with Engineer B to confront him with the faulty design and Engineer R's report, relying on personal intervention without filing a formal report to the State Board
Option3
Retain Engineer R to redesign the unbuilt portions and proceed with corrected construction without reporting Engineer B to any authority, treating remediation as sufficient response
Role Label
Engineer A — Client/Retaining Engineer with Knowledge of Impaired Practice
TTL
@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proethica_case_16: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/16> .
<http://proethica.org/ontology/case/16#DP1> a owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP1" ;
rdfs:subClassOf <http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint> .
Metadata
Ontology
Type
Individual
Content Hash
a3a97dd19ee09377...Last Updated
2026-03-08 16:29
Extraction Provenance
Generated
2026-02-25T12:12:22.705103
Generated By
ProEthica Case 16 Extraction