DP2
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/71#DP2
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP2
Decision question
Should Engineer B apply consistent analytical methodology to all available evidence, including data contradicting the retaining party's position, or confine analysis to data supporting the client's litigation theory?
Focus
Engineer B drew conclusions about pile adequacy while selectively relying on data favorable to the retaining party, failing to apply consistent methodology to contradictory evidence, and omitting from the report data that pointed toward different conclusions. The question is whether Engineer B was obligated to apply methodologically consistent analysis and disclose contradictory evidence.
Option1
Analyze all available data using consistent methodological standards, acknowledge findings that contradict the retaining party's position in the report, and allow the fact-finder to weigh the totality of the technical evidence.
Option2
Focus analysis on data that supports a technically defensible conclusion favorable to the retaining party, relying on the adversarial system and opposing experts to surface contrary evidence rather than volunteering it in the report.
Option3
Note the existence of contradictory data in the report without conducting a full reanalysis under the broader scope, flagging the limitation while staying within the contracted analytical framework and leaving comprehensive reconciliation to the trier of fact.
Role
Engineer B Litigation Expert
TTL
@prefix case71: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/71#> .
@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#> .
case71:DP2 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP2" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP2" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer B apply consistent analytical methodology to all available evidence, including data contradicting the retaining party's position, or confine analysis to data supporting the client's litigation theory?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer B drew conclusions about pile adequacy while selectively relying on data favorable to the retaining party, failing to apply consistent methodology to contradictory evidence, and omitting from the report data that pointed toward different conclusions. The question is whether Engineer B was obligated to apply methodologically consistent analysis and disclose contradictory evidence." ;
proeth:option1 "Analyze all available data using consistent methodological standards, acknowledge findings that contradict the retaining party's position in the report, and allow the fact-finder to weigh the totality of the technical evidence." ;
proeth:option2 "Focus analysis on data that supports a technically defensible conclusion favorable to the retaining party, relying on the adversarial system and opposing experts to surface contrary evidence rather than volunteering it in the report." ;
proeth:option3 "Note the existence of contradictory data in the report without conducting a full reanalysis under the broader scope, flagging the limitation while staying within the contracted analytical framework and leaving comprehensive reconciliation to the trier of fact." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer B Litigation Expert" ;
prov:wasAttributedTo "claude-sonnet-4-6" ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 71 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Attributed to
claude-sonnet-4-6
Generated by
ProEthica Case 71 Extraction