Engineer A General Direction Non-Equivalence to Responsible Charge Violation
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/163#Engineer_A_General_Direction_Non-Equivalence_to_Responsible_Charge_Violation
Properties
Instance of
GeneralDirectionNon-EquivalencetoResponsibleChargeSealingPrerequisiteObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#GeneralDirectionNon-EquivalencetoResponsibleChargeSealingPrerequisiteObligation
Case context
Engineer A explicitly defines his supervisory involvement as concept establishment, design requirements setting, progress-based element review, and technical Q&A — a definition that falls below the detailed review and check required for responsible charge — yet treats this involvement as sufficient justification for sealing.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.92
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer A
Obligation statement
Engineer A was obligated to recognize that his self-described practice of general direction and supervision — establishing concepts, setting design requirements, reviewing design elements as the project progresses, and answering technical questions — does not satisfy the responsible charge standard required as a prerequisite for sealing engineering documents, and to refrain from sealing plans on the basis of this level of involvement alone.
Temporal scope
Throughout Engineer A's tenure as Chief Engineer, each time he sealed plans based solely on his general direction and supervision involvement
Relationships
defeasibleUnder
Engineer A General Supervision Without Detailed Design Review
Source Evidence
Source text
By general direction and supervision, Engineer A means that he is involved in helping to establish the concept, the design requirements, and review elements of the design or project status as the design progresses.
Text references
By general direction and supervision, Engineer A means that he is involved in helping to establish the concept, the design requirements, and review elements of the design or project status as the design progresses.
Engineer A finds it impossible to give a detailed review or check of the design.
Engineer A is consulted about technical questions and he provides answers and direction in these matters.
TTL
@prefix case163: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/163#> .
@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 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#> .
case163:Engineer_A_General_Direction_Non-Equivalence_to_Responsible_Charge_Violation a proeth:GeneralDirectionNon-EquivalencetoResponsibleChargeSealingPrerequisiteObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer A General Direction Non-Equivalence to Responsible Charge Violation" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case163:Engineer_A_Responsible_Charge_Detailed_Review_Before_Sealing_Violation ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case163:Engineer_A_General_Supervision_Without_Detailed_Design_Review ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer A explicitly defines his supervisory involvement as concept establishment, design requirements setting, progress-based element review, and technical Q&A — a definition that falls below the detailed review and check required for responsible charge — yet treats this involvement as sufficient justification for sealing." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.92" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case163:Responsible_Charge_Direction_and_Control_Definition_Applied_to_Chief_Engineer_Sealing ;
proeth:discoveredincase "163" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T14:19:56.596848+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "163" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T14:19:56.596848+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A" ;
proeth:obligationclass "General Direction Non-Equivalence to Responsible Charge Sealing Prerequisite Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to recognize that his self-described practice of general direction and supervision — establishing concepts, setting design requirements, reviewing design elements as the project progresses, and answering technical questions — does not satisfy the responsible charge standard required as a prerequisite for sealing engineering documents, and to refrain from sealing plans on the basis of this level of involvement alone." ;
proeth:sourcetext "By general direction and supervision, Engineer A means that he is involved in helping to establish the concept, the design requirements, and review elements of the design or project status as the design progresses." ;
proeth:temporalscope "Throughout Engineer A's tenure as Chief Engineer, each time he sealed plans based solely on his general direction and supervision involvement" ;
proeth:textreferences "By general direction and supervision, Engineer A means that he is involved in helping to establish the concept, the design requirements, and review elements of the design or project status as the design progresses.",
"Engineer A finds it impossible to give a detailed review or check of the design.",
"Engineer A is consulted about technical questions and he provides answers and direction in these matters." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 163 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T14:34:52.541183"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 163 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
163
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
facts
First discovered
2026-03-01T14:19:56.596848+00:00
First case
163
Generated
2026-03-01T14:19:56.596848+00:00
Attributed to
Case 163 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T14:34:52.541183
Generated by
ProEthica Case 163 Extraction