DP5

@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:DP5 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "DP5" ; proeth:decisionPointId "DP5" ; proeth:decisionQuestion "After notifying Engineer B of the discovered safety code violations, should Engineer A treat the collegial discussion as fulfilling the reporting obligation and await Engineer B's response indefinitely, establish a documented corrective-action deadline and escalate to authorities if that deadline is not met, or report to proper authorities concurrently with or immediately following the notification to Engineer B regardless of Engineer B's response?" ; proeth:focus "Engineer A Post-Notification Follow-Through Obligation: After notifying Engineer B of discovered safety violations, whether Engineer A's ethical duty is discharged by the collegial discussion alone or requires active monitoring, a documented corrective-action framework, and independent escalation to authorities if Engineer B fails to act promptly." ; proeth:option1 "At the time of notifying Engineer B, establish a documented corrective-action framework specifying what remediation is expected, by what deadline, and what escalation steps Engineer A will take if Engineer B fails to act — then follow through with regulatory reporting if Engineer B does not take prompt and verifiable corrective action within that timeframe." ; proeth:option2 "Treat the collegial notification as fulfilling the immediate reporting obligation and allow Engineer B a reasonable, open-ended period to assess and correct the violations before taking any further action, on the grounds that the peer review program's collegial improvement purpose is best served by giving Engineer B a genuine opportunity to self-correct without the pressure of a concurrent regulatory referral." ; proeth:option3 "Notify Engineer B of the violations and simultaneously — or immediately thereafter — report the findings to the proper regulatory authorities, on the grounds that the public may already be exposed to risk from implemented non-compliant designs and that Engineer A's duty runs to the public rather than to securing Engineer B's private promise of future compliance." ; proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A Peer Review Safety Violation Discovering Engineer" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T09:39:17.700390"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 181 Extraction" .