DP4
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/181#DP4
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP4
Decision question
When Engineer A discovers that Engineer B's work may violate state and local safety codes during a confidential peer review, should Engineer A treat the confidentiality agreement as binding and remain silent, notify Engineer B privately as a first step before any external disclosure, or report directly to the proper authorities without waiting for Engineer B's response?
Focus
Engineer A Peer Review Safety Violation Discovery: Confidentiality Agreement Scope vs. Safety Reporting Obligation — whether Engineer A must report discovered safety code violations to Engineer B and/or authorities despite having signed a peer review confidentiality agreement lacking an explicit safety-disclosure carve-out.
Option1
Immediately discuss the discovered violations with Engineer B to seek clarification and allow for early private resolution, while documenting findings and establishing a clear timeline for corrective action — escalating to proper authorities if Engineer B fails to respond credibly or take prompt corrective steps.
Option2
Treat the signed confidentiality agreement as binding and refrain from disclosing the discovered violations to Engineer B or to authorities, on the grounds that the agreement was voluntarily accepted and the violation is characterized only as potential rather than confirmed.
Option3
Bypass the collegial notification step and report the discovered safety code violations directly to the relevant regulatory authorities without first notifying Engineer B, on the grounds that the public safety duty is paramount and any delay — including the time required for collegial discussion — risks ongoing public exposure to harm.
Role
Engineer A Peer Review Safety Violation Discovering Engineer
TTL
@prefix case181: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/181#> .
@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#> .
case181:DP4 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP4" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP4" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "When Engineer A discovers that Engineer B's work may violate state and local safety codes during a confidential peer review, should Engineer A treat the confidentiality agreement as binding and remain silent, notify Engineer B privately as a first step before any external disclosure, or report directly to the proper authorities without waiting for Engineer B's response?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer A Peer Review Safety Violation Discovery: Confidentiality Agreement Scope vs. Safety Reporting Obligation — whether Engineer A must report discovered safety code violations to Engineer B and/or authorities despite having signed a peer review confidentiality agreement lacking an explicit safety-disclosure carve-out." ;
proeth:option1 "Immediately discuss the discovered violations with Engineer B to seek clarification and allow for early private resolution, while documenting findings and establishing a clear timeline for corrective action — escalating to proper authorities if Engineer B fails to respond credibly or take prompt corrective steps." ;
proeth:option2 "Treat the signed confidentiality agreement as binding and refrain from disclosing the discovered violations to Engineer B or to authorities, on the grounds that the agreement was voluntarily accepted and the violation is characterized only as potential rather than confirmed." ;
proeth:option3 "Bypass the collegial notification step and report the discovered safety code violations directly to the relevant regulatory authorities without first notifying Engineer B, on the grounds that the public safety duty is paramount and any delay — including the time required for collegial discussion — risks ongoing public exposure to harm." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A Peer Review Safety Violation Discovering Engineer" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T09:39:17.700311"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 181 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-03-01T09:39:17.700311
Generated by
ProEthica Case 181 Extraction