Engineer C Active Contract Incumbent Knowledge Requirement Obligation Instance
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/20#Engineer_C_Active_Contract_Incumbent_Knowledge_Requirement_Obligation_Instance
Properties
Instance of
ActiveContractIncumbentEngineerKnowledgeRequirementBeforeReviewObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#ActiveContractIncumbentEngineerKnowledgeRequirementBeforeReviewObligation
Case context
Engineer C evaluated Engineer B's work at the City Administrator's solicitation while Engineer B was still under a 3-year consulting contract with Client A that had not been terminated.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.92
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer C
Obligation statement
Engineer C was obligated to refrain from reviewing or evaluating Engineer B's work for Client A without Engineer B's knowledge, given that Engineer B remained under an active, non-terminated contract with Client A at the time of the review.
Temporal scope
At the time of the City Administrator's solicitation and during any evaluation of Engineer B's work
Relationships
defeasibleUnder
Engineer B Active Contract During Engineer C Solicitation
prevailsOver
Engineer C Solicited Competit or Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance, Engineer C Solicited Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
derivedFromPrinciple
Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Violated by Engineer C Review
Source Evidence
Source text
The Code states engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.
Text references
Additionally, Engineer B is still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated.
In the present case, Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C.
The Code states engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.
TTL
@prefix case20: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/20#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix proeth-core: <http://proethica.org/ontology/core#> .
@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#> .
case20:Engineer_C_Active_Contract_Incumbent_Knowledge_Requirement_Obligation_Instance a proeth:ActiveContractIncumbentEngineerKnowledgeRequirementBeforeReviewObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer C Active Contract Incumbent Knowledge Requirement Obligation Instance" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case20:Engineer_C_Solicited_Competitor_Critique_Objectivity_Obligation_Instance ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case20:Engineer_B_Active_Contract_During_Engineer_C_Solicitation ;
proeth-core:prevailsOver case20:Engineer_C_Solicited_Competitor_Critique_Objectivity_Obligation_Instance,
case20:Engineer_C_Solicited_Critique_Objectivity_Obligation_Instance ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer C evaluated Engineer B's work at the City Administrator's solicitation while Engineer B was still under a 3-year consulting contract with Client A that had not been terminated." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.92" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case20:Incumbent_Engineer_Knowledge_Requirement_Violated_by_Engineer_C_Review ;
proeth:discoveredincase "20" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-25T16:28:47.673280+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "20" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-25T16:28:47.673280+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer C" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Active Contract Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Before Review Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer C was obligated to refrain from reviewing or evaluating Engineer B's work for Client A without Engineer B's knowledge, given that Engineer B remained under an active, non-terminated contract with Client A at the time of the review." ;
proeth:sourcetext "The Code states engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated." ;
proeth:temporalscope "At the time of the City Administrator's solicitation and during any evaluation of Engineer B's work" ;
proeth:textreferences "Additionally, Engineer B is still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated.",
"In the present case, Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C.",
"The Code states engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 20 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-25T16:36:27.862899"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 20 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
20
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-02-25T16:28:47.673280+00:00
First case
20
Generated
2026-02-25T16:28:47.673280+00:00
Attributed to
Case 20 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-25T16:36:27.862899
Generated by
ProEthica Case 20 Extraction