Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/20#Engineer_C_Solicited_Competitor_Critique_Objectivity_Obligation_Instance
Properties
Instance of
SolicitedCompetitorCritiqueObjectivityObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#SolicitedCompetitorCritiqueObjectivityObligation
Case context
Engineer C was aware that answering the City Administrator's questions 'in a certain perspective' would advantage his competitive position in the Client A contract renewal.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.88
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer C
Obligation statement
Engineer C, having engaged in conversation with the City Administrator about Engineer B's work despite the obligation to decline, was obligated to provide only objective, technically accurate, and complete assessments, refraining from framing opinions 'in a certain perspective' designed to advantage Engineer C's competitive position, and to include all relevant information pertinent to a fair evaluation of Engineer B's work.
Temporal scope
During and after the conversation with the City Administrator about Engineer B's work
Relationships
competesWith
Engineer C Active Contract Incumbent Knowledge Requirement Obligation Instance, Engineer C Honorable Procurement Conduct Obligation Instance, Engineer C Prohibition on Reputation Injury Obligation Instance
defeasibleUnder
Engineer B Unaware of Covert Peer Evaluation, Engineer C Conflict of Interest in Procurement Competition
derivedFromPrinciple
Objectivity Obligation Applied to Engineer C Critical Opinions
Source Evidence
Source text
Engineer C's conversation with Client A could easily be seen as improper and questionable since, during the conversation with the City Administrator, Engineer C was not fully cognizant of Engineer B's situation.
Text references
Engineer C's conversation with Client A could easily be seen as improper and questionable since, during the conversation with the City Administrator, Engineer C was not fully cognizant of Engineer B's situation.
using the situation to Engineer C's advantage could be perceived the same way.
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_Solicited_Competitor_Critique_Objectivity_Obligation_Instance a proeth:SolicitedCompetitorCritiqueObjectivityObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Obligation Instance" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case20:Engineer_C_Active_Contract_Incumbent_Knowledge_Requirement_Obligation_Instance,
case20:Engineer_C_Honorable_Procurement_Conduct_Obligation_Instance,
case20:Engineer_C_Prohibition_on_Reputation_Injury_Obligation_Instance ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case20:Engineer_B_Unaware_of_Covert_Peer_Evaluation,
case20:Engineer_C_Conflict_of_Interest_in_Procurement_Competition ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer C was aware that answering the City Administrator's questions 'in a certain perspective' would advantage his competitive position in the Client A contract renewal." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.88" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case20:Objectivity_Obligation_Applied_to_Engineer_C_Critical_Opinions ;
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 "Solicited Competitor Critique Objectivity Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer C, having engaged in conversation with the City Administrator about Engineer B's work despite the obligation to decline, was obligated to provide only objective, technically accurate, and complete assessments, refraining from framing opinions 'in a certain perspective' designed to advantage Engineer C's competitive position, and to include all relevant information pertinent to a fair evaluation of Engineer B's work." ;
proeth:sourcetext "Engineer C's conversation with Client A could easily be seen as improper and questionable since, during the conversation with the City Administrator, Engineer C was not fully cognizant of Engineer B's situation." ;
proeth:temporalscope "During and after the conversation with the City Administrator about Engineer B's work" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer C's conversation with Client A could easily be seen as improper and questionable since, during the conversation with the City Administrator, Engineer C was not fully cognizant of Engineer B's situation.",
"using the situation to Engineer C's advantage could be perceived the same way." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 20 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-25T16:36:27.863636"^^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
2026-02-25T16:36:27.863636
Generated by
ProEthica Case 20 Extraction