DP12
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/177#DP12
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP12
Decision question
When Firm A has designed infrastructure for a private developer, should Firm A recuse itself entirely from city inspection of that same infrastructure, or may it proceed with inspection under disclosure and consent protocols?
Focus
Firm A: Self-Review Conflict — Designing and Then Inspecting the Same Developer Infrastructure on the City's Behalf
Option1
Refuse to perform city inspection on any infrastructure project that Firm A designed in its private capacity, arranging for an independent engineer to conduct those inspections, thereby eliminating the self-review conflict at its source regardless of disclosure or consent.
Option2
Proceed with inspection of self-designed projects after disclosing the design relationship to both the city and the developer and obtaining formal written consent from the city, relying on the BER 75-7 abstention model's consent-plus-transparency framework as sufficient to manage the conflict.
Option3
Retain an independent third-party engineer to review safety-critical and structurally significant elements of self-designed projects while Firm A conducts routine procedural inspection of non-structural elements, on the theory that partial independent oversight restores sufficient objectivity for the city's purposes without requiring full recusal.
Role
Engineer
TTL
@prefix case177: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/177#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix proeth-cases: <http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#> .
@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#> .
case177:DP12 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP12" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP12" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "When Firm A has designed infrastructure for a private developer, should Firm A recuse itself entirely from city inspection of that same infrastructure, or may it proceed with inspection under disclosure and consent protocols?" ;
proeth:focus "Firm A: Self-Review Conflict — Designing and Then Inspecting the Same Developer Infrastructure on the City's Behalf" ;
proeth:option1 "Refuse to perform city inspection on any infrastructure project that Firm A designed in its private capacity, arranging for an independent engineer to conduct those inspections, thereby eliminating the self-review conflict at its source regardless of disclosure or consent." ;
proeth:option2 "Proceed with inspection of self-designed projects after disclosing the design relationship to both the city and the developer and obtaining formal written consent from the city, relying on the BER 75-7 abstention model's consent-plus-transparency framework as sufficient to manage the conflict." ;
proeth:option3 "Retain an independent third-party engineer to review safety-critical and structurally significant elements of self-designed projects while Firm A conducts routine procedural inspection of non-structural elements, on the theory that partial independent oversight restores sufficient objectivity for the city's purposes without requiring full recusal." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T09:53:24.923290"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 177 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-03-01T09:53:24.923290
Generated by
ProEthica Case 177 Extraction