DP8
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/177#DP8
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP8
Decision question
Should Firm A perform city-mandated inspection of developer infrastructure that Firm A itself designed, or must it recuse from self-review and arrange for independent inspection of its own design work?
Focus
City-Retained Engineer Self-Design-Review Prohibition: Whether Firm A Should Inspect Infrastructure It Also Designed for the Same Private Developer
Option1
Decline to perform city inspection of any infrastructure Firm A itself designed, and proactively arrange for a fully independent engineer to conduct the city-mandated review of that work, disclosing the self-review conflict to the city as the basis for the recusal.
Option2
Proceed with city inspection of Firm A's own design work while implementing enhanced documentation protocols — including detailed checklists, third-party peer review of inspection findings, and full disclosure to the city — on the theory that procedural rigor and transparency can adequately substitute for structural independence.
Option3
Disclose the self-review scenario to the city before proceeding, obtain the city's explicit written consent to Firm A inspecting its own design work, and rely on the city's informed authorization as sufficient ethical clearance under a BER 74-2 type public interest analysis for resource-constrained municipalities.
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:DP8 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP8" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP8" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Firm A perform city-mandated inspection of developer infrastructure that Firm A itself designed, or must it recuse from self-review and arrange for independent inspection of its own design work?" ;
proeth:focus "City-Retained Engineer Self-Design-Review Prohibition: Whether Firm A Should Inspect Infrastructure It Also Designed for the Same Private Developer" ;
proeth:option1 "Decline to perform city inspection of any infrastructure Firm A itself designed, and proactively arrange for a fully independent engineer to conduct the city-mandated review of that work, disclosing the self-review conflict to the city as the basis for the recusal." ;
proeth:option2 "Proceed with city inspection of Firm A's own design work while implementing enhanced documentation protocols — including detailed checklists, third-party peer review of inspection findings, and full disclosure to the city — on the theory that procedural rigor and transparency can adequately substitute for structural independence." ;
proeth:option3 "Disclose the self-review scenario to the city before proceeding, obtain the city's explicit written consent to Firm A inspecting its own design work, and rely on the city's informed authorization as sufficient ethical clearance under a BER 74-2 type public interest analysis for resource-constrained municipalities." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T09:53:24.922847"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 177 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-03-01T09:53:24.922847
Generated by
ProEthica Case 177 Extraction