DP2

DecisionPoint
http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint

DP2

Should Engineer A treat his pledge to produce a separate and independent defense-side report as sufficient to cure the ethical conflict arising from his prior plaintiff-side confidential engagement, or must he recognize that mental segregation of prior confidential knowledge is impossible and that the pledge cannot override the structural bar?

Engineer A agreed to provide a 'separate and independent' engineering and safety analysis report for the defense as a means of framing the engagement as free from the taint of his prior plaintiff-side work. The board must assess whether this pledge of independence — combined with Engineer A's demonstrated objectivity in refusing to produce a false plaintiff report — is sufficient to cure the structural conflict created by his prior confidential access to the plaintiff's case materials, or whether the mental segregation of that knowledge is impossible and the pledge therefore illusory.

Acknowledge that the pledge to produce an independent report cannot cure the structural conflict created by prior confidential plaintiff-side access, because the mind cannot un-know what it learned in confidence, and decline the defense engagement on that basis regardless of stated intent to be objective.

Proceed with the defense engagement on the basis that Engineer A's prior refusal to produce a false plaintiff report demonstrates genuine independence of judgment, and that a technically rigorous defense report produced from first principles satisfies the forensic expert's non-advocate obligation regardless of prior engagement history.

Accept the defense engagement but formally restrict the scope of analysis to physical evidence and publicly available data, explicitly excluding any reliance on information obtained during the plaintiff-side engagement, and document this limitation in the engagement agreement as a structural safeguard against confidential information contamination.

Engineer A