DP6
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/181#DP6
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP6
Decision question
Upon discovering potential safety code violations during the peer review, should Engineer A proceed directly to notifying Engineer B under the standard sequential escalation model without a formal documented risk assessment, conduct and document a severity-and-imminence assessment first to determine which escalation pathway applies, or apply a uniform immediate-reporting standard to all discovered violations regardless of assessed severity?
Focus
Engineer A Severity and Imminence Assessment Obligation: Whether Engineer A must conduct and document a formal severity-and-imminence assessment of the discovered safety risk at the moment of discovery, and how that assessment determines which escalation pathway — sequential collegial notification or immediate regulatory reporting — is ethically required.
Option1
Before taking any escalation action, conduct and document a formal severity-and-imminence assessment identifying the specific code discrepancies, the design elements involved, the applicable safety code provisions, and the potential harm pathway — then select the escalation pathway (sequential collegial notification or immediate regulatory reporting) calibrated to the assessed level of risk.
Option2
Proceed directly to notifying Engineer B under the standard sequential escalation model without conducting a separate documented risk assessment, on the grounds that the 'may be in violation' standard uniformly triggers the collegial-first pathway and that a formal assessment introduces delay that is itself potentially harmful when a violation has already been identified.
Option3
Report all discovered potential safety code violations directly to proper authorities without a severity-and-imminence assessment, on the grounds that any violation of state and local safety codes constitutes a sufficient public safety risk to trigger the paramount reporting duty, and that calibrating the response to assessed severity introduces subjective judgment that could be used to rationalize inaction.
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:DP6 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP6" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP6" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Upon discovering potential safety code violations during the peer review, should Engineer A proceed directly to notifying Engineer B under the standard sequential escalation model without a formal documented risk assessment, conduct and document a severity-and-imminence assessment first to determine which escalation pathway applies, or apply a uniform immediate-reporting standard to all discovered violations regardless of assessed severity?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer A Severity and Imminence Assessment Obligation: Whether Engineer A must conduct and document a formal severity-and-imminence assessment of the discovered safety risk at the moment of discovery, and how that assessment determines which escalation pathway — sequential collegial notification or immediate regulatory reporting — is ethically required." ;
proeth:option1 "Before taking any escalation action, conduct and document a formal severity-and-imminence assessment identifying the specific code discrepancies, the design elements involved, the applicable safety code provisions, and the potential harm pathway — then select the escalation pathway (sequential collegial notification or immediate regulatory reporting) calibrated to the assessed level of risk." ;
proeth:option2 "Proceed directly to notifying Engineer B under the standard sequential escalation model without conducting a separate documented risk assessment, on the grounds that the 'may be in violation' standard uniformly triggers the collegial-first pathway and that a formal assessment introduces delay that is itself potentially harmful when a violation has already been identified." ;
proeth:option3 "Report all discovered potential safety code violations directly to proper authorities without a severity-and-imminence assessment, on the grounds that any violation of state and local safety codes constitutes a sufficient public safety risk to trigger the paramount reporting duty, and that calibrating the response to assessed severity introduces subjective judgment that could be used to rationalize inaction." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A Peer Review Safety Violation Discovering Engineer" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T09:39:17.700470"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 181 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-03-01T09:39:17.700470
Generated by
ProEthica Case 181 Extraction