DP9

@prefix case7: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/7#> . @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#> . case7:DP9 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint, owl:NamedIndividual ; rdfs:label "DP9" ; proeth:decisionPointId "DP9" ; proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer A seal and submit the AI-generated design documents after only a cursory review, or must Engineer A conduct a thorough independent technical verification before sealing?" ; proeth:focus "Engineer A faces a decision about whether to seal and submit design documents that were substantially generated by AI tools without adequate independent technical verification, responsible charge oversight, or confirmation that required safety features are present." ; proeth:option1 "Perform a comprehensive, line-by-line technical review of all AI-generated design documents, independently verify that all required safety features are present and code-compliant, and only affix the professional seal after establishing genuine responsible charge over the entire design." ; proeth:option2 "Apply the firm's standard quality assurance review protocols to the AI-generated documents at the same level used for conventionally drafted designs, treating AI as an advanced drafting tool, and seal upon completion of that standard review without a separate AI-specific verification layer." ; proeth:option3 "Pause the sealing process, engage a qualified senior engineer or external reviewer to provide the mentorship and technical oversight lost when Engineer B departed, and seal only after that substitute oversight confirms the design documents are complete, safe, and accurate." ; proeth:roleLabel "Engineer" ; prov:wasAttributedTo "claude-sonnet-4-6" ; prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 7 Extraction" .