BER-85-5 Precedent Confirmation Bias Resistance Cross-Application to Dispute Resolution
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/176#BER-85-5_Precedent_Confirmation_Bias_Resistance_Cross-Application_to_Dispute_Resolution
Properties
Instance of
VarianceDataInclusioninTechnicalReportObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#VarianceDataInclusioninTechnicalReportObligation
Case context
The Board drew an explicit analogy between the BER 85-5 research report omission case and Engineer A's dispute resolution role, applying the objectivity and bias-resistance principles from the research context to the contractual dispute resolution context.
Compliance status
met
Confidence
0.85
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer A
Obligation statement
Engineer A was obligated to apply the BER 85-5 principle of confirmation bias resistance and objective data evaluation to the dispute resolution context — wrestling head-on with difficult issues rather than selectively emphasizing findings consistent with the Owner's preferred outcome.
Temporal scope
During the evaluation and determination of the Owner-Contractor dispute
Relationships
derivedFromPrinciple
Confirmation Bias Resistance Invoked in BER 85-5 Research Report
Source Evidence
Source text
While the facts in BER Case 85-5 are quite different than those in this case, the Board's discussion of the issues are quite relevant.
Text references
Clearly, that discussion is pertinent to the Board's inquiry in the present case.
While the facts in BER Case 85-5 are quite different than those in this case, the Board's discussion of the issues are quite relevant.
the challenge...is not to develop consistent or precise findings that one can identify and categorize neatly, nor is it to identify results that are in accord with one's basic premise. The real challenge...is to wrestle head-on with the difficult and sometimes insoluble issues that surface and try to gain some understanding of why they are at variance with other results.
TTL
@prefix case176: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/176#> .
@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#> .
case176:BER-85-5_Precedent_Confirmation_Bias_Resistance_Cross-Application_to_Dispute_Resolution a proeth:VarianceDataInclusioninTechnicalReportObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "BER-85-5 Precedent Confirmation Bias Resistance Cross-Application to Dispute Resolution" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case176:BER-85-5_Research_Engineer_Variance_Data_Omission_Ethical_Violation ;
proeth-core:prevailsOver case176:BER-85-5_Research_Engineer_Variance_Data_Omission_Ethical_Violation ;
proeth:casecontext "The Board drew an explicit analogy between the BER 85-5 research report omission case and Engineer A's dispute resolution role, applying the objectivity and bias-resistance principles from the research context to the contractual dispute resolution context." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "met" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.85" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case176:Confirmation_Bias_Resistance_Invoked_in_BER_85-5_Research_Report ;
proeth:discoveredincase "176" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T11:05:20.105198+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "176" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T11:05:20.105198+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Variance Data Inclusion in Technical Report Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to apply the BER 85-5 principle of confirmation bias resistance and objective data evaluation to the dispute resolution context — wrestling head-on with difficult issues rather than selectively emphasizing findings consistent with the Owner's preferred outcome." ;
proeth:sourcetext "While the facts in BER Case 85-5 are quite different than those in this case, the Board's discussion of the issues are quite relevant." ;
proeth:temporalscope "During the evaluation and determination of the Owner-Contractor dispute" ;
proeth:textreferences "Clearly, that discussion is pertinent to the Board's inquiry in the present case.",
"While the facts in BER Case 85-5 are quite different than those in this case, the Board's discussion of the issues are quite relevant.",
"the challenge...is not to develop consistent or precise findings that one can identify and categorize neatly, nor is it to identify results that are in accord with one's basic premise. The real challenge...is to wrestle head-on with the difficult and sometimes insoluble issues that surface and try to gain some understanding of why they are at variance with other results." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 176 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T11:13:16.201237"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 176 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
176
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T11:05:20.105198+00:00
First case
176
Generated
2026-03-01T11:05:20.105198+00:00
Attributed to
Case 176 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T11:13:16.201237
Generated by
ProEthica Case 176 Extraction