Engineer B Joint Inspection Available Evidence Consultation Before Adverse Opinion
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/169#Engineer_B_Joint_Inspection_Available_Evidence_Consultation_Before_Adverse_Opinion
Properties
Instance of
AvailableEvidenceConsultationBeforeAdverseTechnicalOpinionObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#AvailableEvidenceConsultationBeforeAdverseTechnicalOpinionObligation
Case context
Before issuing findings about Engineer A's original designs, Engineer B participated in a joint inspection of the wiring with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector; the joint inspection did not reveal problems with the wiring, while Engineer B's subsequent report identified inadequacies in the heating equipment sizing.
Compliance status
met
Confidence
0.89
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer B (Post-Occupancy Facility Inspection Engineer)
Obligation statement
Engineer B was obligated to consult available evidence — including participating in a joint inspection with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector — before issuing adverse technical findings about Engineer A's original MEP designs, ensuring the adverse opinion was grounded in shared evidentiary review.
Temporal scope
Prior to issuing the inspection report containing adverse findings about Engineer A's original designs
Relationships
defeasibleUnder
Joint Wiring Inspection Revealing No Defects
derivedFromPrinciple
Available Evidence Consultation Satisfied By Joint Wiring Inspection
Source Evidence
Source text
Engineer B participated in a joint inspection of the wiring with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector before issuing findings
Text references
Engineer B participated in a joint inspection of the wiring with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector before issuing findings
On the basis of the information submitted to us, there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A
TTL
@prefix case169: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/169#> .
@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#> .
case169:Engineer_B_Joint_Inspection_Available_Evidence_Consultation_Before_Adverse_Opinion a proeth:AvailableEvidenceConsultationBeforeAdverseTechnicalOpinionObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer B Joint Inspection Available Evidence Consultation Before Adverse Opinion" ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case169:Joint_Wiring_Inspection_Revealing_No_Defects ;
proeth:casecontext "Before issuing findings about Engineer A's original designs, Engineer B participated in a joint inspection of the wiring with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector; the joint inspection did not reveal problems with the wiring, while Engineer B's subsequent report identified inadequacies in the heating equipment sizing." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "met" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.89" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case169:Available_Evidence_Consultation_Satisfied_By_Joint_Wiring_Inspection ;
proeth:discoveredincase "169" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T22:26:07.553169+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "169" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T22:26:07.553169+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer B (Post-Occupancy Facility Inspection Engineer)" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Available Evidence Consultation Before Adverse Technical Opinion Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer B was obligated to consult available evidence — including participating in a joint inspection with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector — before issuing adverse technical findings about Engineer A's original MEP designs, ensuring the adverse opinion was grounded in shared evidentiary review." ;
proeth:sourcetext "Engineer B participated in a joint inspection of the wiring with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector before issuing findings" ;
proeth:temporalscope "Prior to issuing the inspection report containing adverse findings about Engineer A's original designs" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer B participated in a joint inspection of the wiring with Engineer A and the city wiring inspector before issuing findings",
"On the basis of the information submitted to us, there is no showing that Engineer B had undertaken his review and subsequent report with the intent to injure the professional reputation or practice of Engineer A" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 169 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T22:36:17.049993"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 169 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
169
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T22:26:07.553169+00:00
First case
169
Generated
2026-03-01T22:26:07.553169+00:00
Attributed to
Case 169 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T22:36:17.049993
Generated by
ProEthica Case 169 Extraction