DP12
Individual
6ddee5f6
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/177#DP12
Properties
Parent
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 Label
Engineer
TTL
@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proethica_case_177: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/177> .
<http://proethica.org/ontology/case/177#DP12> a owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP12" ;
rdfs:subClassOf <http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint> .
Metadata
Ontology
Type
Individual
Content Hash
6ddee5f653309de9...Last Updated
2026-03-08 16:29
Extraction Provenance
Generated
2026-03-01T09:53:24.923290
Generated By
ProEthica Case 177 Extraction