Engineer C Collegial Non-Harm to Incumbent Reputation Obligation Instance
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/20#Engineer_C_Collegial_Non-Harm_to_Incumbent_Reputation_Obligation_Instance
Properties
Instance of
Case context
Engineer C provided critical opinions about Engineer B's specific engineering decisions to the City Administrator, who held significant authority over the contract renewal process, while Engineer C was simultaneously competing for that contract — creating a situation where the critique served to harm Engineer B's professional reputation for Engineer C's competitive benefit.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.85
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer C
Obligation statement
Engineer C was obligated, as a matter of collegial duty toward Engineer B as a professional peer, to refrain from providing critical opinions about Engineer B's engineering decisions in a context where those opinions were solicited by a party with authority over Engineer B's contract renewal and where Engineer C had a direct competitive interest in undermining Engineer B's professional standing.
Temporal scope
At the time of responding to the City Administrator's solicitation for critique of Engineer B's work
Relationships
defeasibleUnder
Engineer C Competitive Self-Interest in Evaluation Context
derivedFromPrinciple
Professional Dignity of Engineer B Implicated By Engineer C Conduct
Source Evidence
Source text
Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
Text references
Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.
Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract.
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_Collegial_Non-Harm_to_Incumbent_Reputation_Obligation_Instance a proeth:CollegialObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer C Collegial Non-Harm to Incumbent Reputation Obligation Instance" ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case20:Engineer_C_Competitive_Self-Interest_in_Evaluation_Context ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer C provided critical opinions about Engineer B's specific engineering decisions to the City Administrator, who held significant authority over the contract renewal process, while Engineer C was simultaneously competing for that contract — creating a situation where the critique served to harm Engineer B's professional reputation for Engineer C's competitive benefit." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.85" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case20:Professional_Dignity_of_Engineer_B_Implicated_By_Engineer_C_Conduct ;
proeth:discoveredincase "20" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-25T16:24:12.880470+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "20" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-25T16:24:12.880470+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer C" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Collegial Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer C was obligated, as a matter of collegial duty toward Engineer B as a professional peer, to refrain from providing critical opinions about Engineer B's engineering decisions in a context where those opinions were solicited by a party with authority over Engineer B's contract renewal and where Engineer C had a direct competitive interest in undermining Engineer B's professional standing." ;
proeth:sourcetext "Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions." ;
proeth:temporalscope "At the time of responding to the City Administrator's solicitation for critique of Engineer B's work" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions.",
"Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 20 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-25T16:36:27.859944"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 20 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
20
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
facts
First discovered
2026-02-25T16:24:12.880470+00:00
First case
20
Generated
2026-02-25T16:24:12.880470+00:00
Attributed to
Case 20 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-25T16:36:27.859944
Generated by
ProEthica Case 20 Extraction