DP3
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/71#DP3
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP3
Decision question
Should Engineer B present a complete and methodologically consistent technical report including all findings, or limit the report to data and methods that support the retaining party's position?
Focus
Engineer B was retained as an expert witness and conducted geotechnical investigations, but the final report omitted equipment failures, used inconsistent methodology, and presented incomplete findings. The core question is whether Engineer B must report all findings completely and consistently, or whether selective presentation is defensible given the adversarial litigation context.
Option1
Include all findings in the report, document equipment failures as part of the technical record, and apply consistent methodology throughout, even where results are unfavorable to the retaining party.
Option2
Limit the report to the specific questions posed by the retaining party, treating equipment failures and methodological variations as outside the contracted scope, and leave it to opposing counsel to surface additional issues.
Option3
Submit the primary report as prepared for the retaining party but attach a separate technical addendum documenting equipment failures and methodological deviations, making the limitations part of the record without restructuring the main findings.
Role
Engineer
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:DP3 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP3" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP3" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer B present a complete and methodologically consistent technical report including all findings, or limit the report to data and methods that support the retaining party's position?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer B was retained as an expert witness and conducted geotechnical investigations, but the final report omitted equipment failures, used inconsistent methodology, and presented incomplete findings. The core question is whether Engineer B must report all findings completely and consistently, or whether selective presentation is defensible given the adversarial litigation context." ;
proeth:option1 "Include all findings in the report, document equipment failures as part of the technical record, and apply consistent methodology throughout, even where results are unfavorable to the retaining party." ;
proeth:option2 "Limit the report to the specific questions posed by the retaining party, treating equipment failures and methodological variations as outside the contracted scope, and leave it to opposing counsel to surface additional issues." ;
proeth:option3 "Submit the primary report as prepared for the retaining party but attach a separate technical addendum documenting equipment failures and methodological deviations, making the limitations part of the record without restructuring the main findings." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer" ;
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