Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Violated by Engineer C Review
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/20#Incumbent_Engineer_Knowledge_Requirement_Violated_by_Engineer_C_Review
Properties
Instance of
IncumbentEngineerKnowledgeRequirementinPeerReview
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#IncumbentEngineerKnowledgeRequirementinPeerReview
Applied to
Engineer C's evaluation of Engineer B's work products for City Administrator
Balancing with
Client Loyalty
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
Concrete expression
Engineer C reviewed and criticized Engineer B's work for Client A without Engineer B's knowledge, while Engineer B remained under an active contract with Client A that had not been terminated, violating the NSPE Code requirement that such review occur only with the incumbent's knowledge or after contract termination
Confidence
0.93
Importance
high
Interpretation
The knowledge requirement is a bright-line condition: because Engineer B had no knowledge of the review and the contract was still active, Engineer C's participation was impermissible regardless of the accuracy or good faith of the critique
Invoked by
Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critic
Tension resolution
The incumbent knowledge requirement overrides any obligation to respond to the City Administrator's requests, because the Code's prohibition is categorical when the incumbent lacks knowledge and the contract is active
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. In the present case, Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C. Additionally, Engineer B is still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated.
Text references
Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C
Engineer B is still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated
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 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:Incumbent_Engineer_Knowledge_Requirement_Violated_by_Engineer_C_Review a proeth:IncumbentEngineerKnowledgeRequirementinPeerReview,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Violated by Engineer C Review" ;
proeth:appliedto "Engineer C's evaluation of Engineer B's work products for City Administrator" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Client Loyalty",
"Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer C reviewed and criticized Engineer B's work for Client A without Engineer B's knowledge, while Engineer B remained under an active contract with Client A that had not been terminated, violating the NSPE Code requirement that such review occur only with the incumbent's knowledge or after contract termination" ;
proeth:confidence "0.93" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "20" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-25T16:27:30.991313+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "20" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-25T16:27:30.991313+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "The knowledge requirement is a bright-line condition: because Engineer B had no knowledge of the review and the contract was still active, Engineer C's participation was impermissible regardless of the accuracy or good faith of the critique" ;
proeth:invokedby "Engineer C Solicited Competitor Critic" ;
proeth:principleclass "Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement in Peer 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. In the present case, Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C. Additionally, Engineer B is still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The incumbent knowledge requirement overrides any obligation to respond to the City Administrator's requests, because the Code's prohibition is categorical when the incumbent lacks knowledge and the contract is active" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer B had no knowledge of Client A's conversation with Engineer C",
"Engineer B is still under contract with Client A; the contract has not been terminated",
"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 "2026-02-25T16:36:27.858795"^^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
2026-02-25T16:27:30.991313+00:00
First case
20
Generated
2026-02-25T16:27:30.991313+00:00
Attributed to
Case 20 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-25T16:36:27.858795
Generated by
ProEthica Case 20 Extraction