DP4

@prefix case5: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/5#> . @prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> . @prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> . @prefix proeth-cases: <http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#> . @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#> . case5:DP4 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "DP4" ; proeth:decisionPointId "DP4" ; proeth:decisionQuestion "Did Firm DBA's licensed professional engineers in supervisory and ownership roles violate the NSPE Code of Ethics by approving and permitting the submission of a materially false and incomplete public engagement report, and does the routing of execution through a communications department insulate those licensed PEs from ethical accountability?" ; proeth:focus "The ethical culpability of Firm DBA's licensed professional engineers for designing and approving a public engagement process that systematically excluded Community P and submitting a materially misrepresentative report, given that the NSPE Code applies universally through the PE supervisory and ownership structure regardless of whether the executing personnel were licensed engineers." ; proeth:option1 "Find that Firm DBA's licensed PE supervisors and owners violated the NSPE Code by approving and permitting submission of a materially false public engagement report, and hold that the communications department structure does not insulate them from ethical accountability under the Code" ; proeth:option2 "Find that Firm DBA's licensed PE supervisors bear reduced or no ethical culpability because the public engagement work was executed by non-licensed communications staff and the process was directed by the City client" ; proeth:roleLabel "Firm DBA Licensed PE Supervisors" ; prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-24T16:36:51.374182"^^xsd:dateTime ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 5 Extraction" .