Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Violated by Engineer C and Client A
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/20#Incumbent_Engineer_Knowledge_Requirement_Violated_by_Engineer_C_and_Client_A
Properties
Instance of
IncumbentEngineerKnowledgeRequirementinPeerReview
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#IncumbentEngineerKnowledgeRequirementinPeerReview
Applied to
Engineer C's evaluation of Engineer B's work for Client A
Balancing with
Client Loyalty
Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
Concrete expression
Engineer C reviewed and criticized Engineer B's work without Engineer B having any knowledge of the review, while Engineer B remained under active contract with Client A. This violated the Code requirement that engineers not review another engineer's work for the same client without the incumbent's knowledge or termination of the incumbent's contract.
Confidence
0.95
Importance
high
Interpretation
In this context, the incumbent knowledge requirement prohibited Engineer C from proceeding with any evaluation of Engineer B's work without first ensuring Engineer B had knowledge of the review, because Engineer B's contract was active and had not been terminated
Invoked by
City Administrator Engineering Procurement Authority
Engineer C
Tension resolution
The incumbent knowledge requirement overrides the obligation to respond to client requests for evaluation when the incumbent is unaware 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.
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_and_Client_A a proeth:IncumbentEngineerKnowledgeRequirementinPeerReview,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Incumbent Engineer Knowledge Requirement Violated by Engineer C and Client A" ;
proeth:appliedto "Engineer C's evaluation of Engineer B's work for Client A" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Client Loyalty",
"Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer C reviewed and criticized Engineer B's work without Engineer B having any knowledge of the review, while Engineer B remained under active contract with Client A. This violated the Code requirement that engineers not review another engineer's work for the same client without the incumbent's knowledge or termination of the incumbent's contract." ;
proeth:confidence "0.95" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "20" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-25T18:18:38.161453+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "20" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-25T18:18:38.161453+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "In this context, the incumbent knowledge requirement prohibited Engineer C from proceeding with any evaluation of Engineer B's work without first ensuring Engineer B had knowledge of the review, because Engineer B's contract was active and had not been terminated" ;
proeth:invokedby "City Administrator Engineering Procurement Authority",
"Engineer C" ;
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." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The incumbent knowledge requirement overrides the obligation to respond to client requests for evaluation when the incumbent is unaware 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 "2026-02-25T18:27:44.481215"^^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
2026-02-25T18:18:38.161453+00:00
First case
20
Generated
2026-02-25T18:18:38.161453+00:00
Attributed to
Case 20 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-25T18:27:44.481215
Generated by
ProEthica Case 20 Extraction