DP5
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/58#DP5
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP5
Decision question
What affirmative obligation does Engineer Intern D have to escalate Engineer W's policy-circumventing directive to higher DOT authority, and does the fact that Engineer Intern D is unlicensed and about to sit for the PE exam diminish, preserve, or heighten the standard of professional courage and completeness of reporting expected of him?
Focus
Engineer Intern D's affirmative obligation to escalate Engineer W's policy-circumventing directive to higher DOT authority, and whether the intern's unlicensed pre-PE status affects the standard of professional courage and the scope of the escalation duty
Option1
Escalate the policy conflict to higher DOT authority with complete and unfiltered reporting of all material facts — including the indirectness of the communication, the financial magnitude of the cost shift, and the sign-off promise — after first raising the conflict directly with Engineer W
Option2
Decline to revise the design without escalating to higher authority, treating silent non-compliance as a sufficient discharge of ethical obligation and deferring to Engineer W to resolve the policy question through whatever channels he chooses
Option3
Raise the policy conflict directly with Engineer W in writing and await his response before deciding whether to escalate further, treating the written exchange with the immediate supervisor as a sufficient first step that may resolve the conflict without requiring upward reporting
Role
Engineer Intern D Indirect Policy Violating Directive Escalation Shadyvale
TTL
@prefix case58: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/58#> .
@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#> .
case58:DP5 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP5" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP5" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "What affirmative obligation does Engineer Intern D have to escalate Engineer W's policy-circumventing directive to higher DOT authority, and does the fact that Engineer Intern D is unlicensed and about to sit for the PE exam diminish, preserve, or heighten the standard of professional courage and completeness of reporting expected of him?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer Intern D's affirmative obligation to escalate Engineer W's policy-circumventing directive to higher DOT authority, and whether the intern's unlicensed pre-PE status affects the standard of professional courage and the scope of the escalation duty" ;
proeth:option1 "Escalate the policy conflict to higher DOT authority with complete and unfiltered reporting of all material facts — including the indirectness of the communication, the financial magnitude of the cost shift, and the sign-off promise — after first raising the conflict directly with Engineer W" ;
proeth:option2 "Decline to revise the design without escalating to higher authority, treating silent non-compliance as a sufficient discharge of ethical obligation and deferring to Engineer W to resolve the policy question through whatever channels he chooses" ;
proeth:option3 "Raise the policy conflict directly with Engineer W in writing and await his response before deciding whether to escalate further, treating the written exchange with the immediate supervisor as a sufficient first step that may resolve the conflict without requiring upward reporting" ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer Intern D Indirect Policy Violating Directive Escalation Shadyvale" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-25T22:22:51.687286"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 58 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-25T22:22:51.687286
Generated by
ProEthica Case 58 Extraction