DP9
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/181#DP9
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP9
Decision question
Should Engineer A apply the standard sequential escalation pathway — notify Engineer B first, then escalate to authorities if necessary — or bypass the collegial step and report immediately to the proper authorities based on an assessment that the public safety risk is imminent and severe?
Focus
Engineer A must assess whether the severity and imminence of the discovered safety risk requires immediate bypass of the sequential escalation pathway and direct reporting to authorities, or whether the standard collegial-first escalation sequence remains appropriate — and must document that assessment as a non-optional professional duty.
Option1
Conduct and document a formal severity-and-imminence assessment concluding that the risk is uncertain or non-imminent, then proceed with the standard sequential pathway — notify Engineer B first with a documented corrective action deadline, and commit to escalating to the proper authorities if Engineer B fails to take prompt and verifiable corrective action.
Option2
Conduct and document a severity-and-imminence assessment concluding that the public faces a concrete and serious current risk, then bypass the collegial notification step and report the discovered violations directly and immediately to the proper regulatory authorities — potentially notifying Engineer B concurrently but not as a precondition of regulatory reporting.
Option3
Proceed directly to the collegial notification step without conducting a formal documented severity-and-imminence assessment, treating the sequential pathway as the default applicable procedure for all peer review safety discoveries regardless of the specific risk profile — relying on the collegial discussion itself to surface information about severity and imminence.
Role
Engineer A
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:DP9 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP9" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP9" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer A apply the standard sequential escalation pathway — notify Engineer B first, then escalate to authorities if necessary — or bypass the collegial step and report immediately to the proper authorities based on an assessment that the public safety risk is imminent and severe?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer A must assess whether the severity and imminence of the discovered safety risk requires immediate bypass of the sequential escalation pathway and direct reporting to authorities, or whether the standard collegial-first escalation sequence remains appropriate — and must document that assessment as a non-optional professional duty." ;
proeth:option1 "Conduct and document a formal severity-and-imminence assessment concluding that the risk is uncertain or non-imminent, then proceed with the standard sequential pathway — notify Engineer B first with a documented corrective action deadline, and commit to escalating to the proper authorities if Engineer B fails to take prompt and verifiable corrective action." ;
proeth:option2 "Conduct and document a severity-and-imminence assessment concluding that the public faces a concrete and serious current risk, then bypass the collegial notification step and report the discovered violations directly and immediately to the proper regulatory authorities — potentially notifying Engineer B concurrently but not as a precondition of regulatory reporting." ;
proeth:option3 "Proceed directly to the collegial notification step without conducting a formal documented severity-and-imminence assessment, treating the sequential pathway as the default applicable procedure for all peer review safety discoveries regardless of the specific risk profile — relying on the collegial discussion itself to surface information about severity and imminence." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T09:39:17.700748"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 181 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-03-01T09:39:17.700748
Generated by
ProEthica Case 181 Extraction