Prudential Disclosure as Relational Self-Protection Noted for Engineer A Non-Disclosure
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/178#Prudential_Disclosure_as_Relational_Self-Protection_Noted_for_Engineer_A_Non-Disclosure
Properties
Instance of
PrudentialDisclosureasRelationalSelf-Protection
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#PrudentialDisclosureasRelationalSelf-Protection
Applied to
Engineer A's decision not to disclose Clover City's interest to ABC before departing
Balancing with
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
Non-Disclosing Client-Solicited Departure Contextual Permissibility Principle
Concrete expression
The BER's observation that Engineer A did not disclose Clover City's interest to ABC — while finding this not ethically required — implicitly recognizes that such disclosure would have been prudentially advisable to protect Engineer A's relational standing, as demonstrated by the contrast with Case 86-5 where disclosure was made
Confidence
0.82
Importance
medium
Interpretation
While non-disclosure was found ethically permissible, the comparison with Case 86-5 implicitly suggests that voluntary disclosure would have been the more prudent course, protecting Engineer A's professional standing in the event the non-disclosure became consequential
Invoked by
Engineer A Non-Disclosing Client-Solicited Departing Staff Engineer
Tension resolution
The Board found non-disclosure not ethically required but the comparison with Case 86-5 suggests disclosure would have been the more prudent practice
Source Evidence
Source text
In Case No. 86-5, the three engineers disclosed the fact that the client was interested in their services to their employer before resigning, while in the present case, there is no disclosure between Engineer A and ABC.
Text references
However, weighing all factors, the Board does not consider this to be particularly significant
In Case No. 86-5 , the three engineers disclosed the fact that the client was interested in their services to their employer before resigning, while in the present case, there is no disclosure between Engineer A and ABC.
TTL
@prefix case178: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/178#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@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#> .
case178:Prudential_Disclosure_as_Relational_Self-Protection_Noted_for_Engineer_A_Non-Disclosure a proeth:PrudentialDisclosureasRelationalSelf-Protection,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Prudential Disclosure as Relational Self-Protection Noted for Engineer A Non-Disclosure" ;
proeth:appliedto "Engineer A's decision not to disclose Clover City's interest to ABC before departing" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits",
"Non-Disclosing Client-Solicited Departure Contextual Permissibility Principle" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "The BER's observation that Engineer A did not disclose Clover City's interest to ABC — while finding this not ethically required — implicitly recognizes that such disclosure would have been prudentially advisable to protect Engineer A's relational standing, as demonstrated by the contrast with Case 86-5 where disclosure was made" ;
proeth:confidence "0.82" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "178" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T08:35:45.392536+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "178" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T08:35:45.392536+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "medium" ;
proeth:interpretation "While non-disclosure was found ethically permissible, the comparison with Case 86-5 implicitly suggests that voluntary disclosure would have been the more prudent course, protecting Engineer A's professional standing in the event the non-disclosure became consequential" ;
proeth:invokedby "Engineer A Non-Disclosing Client-Solicited Departing Staff Engineer" ;
proeth:principleclass "Prudential Disclosure as Relational Self-Protection" ;
proeth:sourcetext "In Case No. 86-5, the three engineers disclosed the fact that the client was interested in their services to their employer before resigning, while in the present case, there is no disclosure between Engineer A and ABC." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The Board found non-disclosure not ethically required but the comparison with Case 86-5 suggests disclosure would have been the more prudent practice" ;
proeth:textreferences "However, weighing all factors, the Board does not consider this to be particularly significant",
"In Case No. 86-5 , the three engineers disclosed the fact that the client was interested in their services to their employer before resigning, while in the present case, there is no disclosure between Engineer A and ABC." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 178 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T08:48:26.021133"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 178 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
178
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T08:35:45.392536+00:00
First case
178
Generated
2026-03-01T08:35:45.392536+00:00
Attributed to
Case 178 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T08:48:26.021133
Generated by
ProEthica Case 178 Extraction