DP10
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/83#DP10
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP10
Decision question
Should Engineer A include the in-house biologist's threatened species finding in the written report submitted to the public authority, given that Engineer A verbally disclosed the concern to the developer client but the client has not explicitly invoked confidentiality or instructed omission?
Focus
Engineer A Environmental Principal: Obligation to include the biologist's threatened species finding in the written report submitted to the public authority, versus omitting it after verbal disclosure to the developer client.
Option1
Include the biologist's threatened species finding in the written report submitted to the public authority, and notify the developer client in advance of submission that the finding will appear in the report
Option2
Omit the threatened species finding from the written report on the ground that it falls outside the contracted scope of the environmental analysis, while preserving the verbal disclosure to the client as the record of Engineer A's professional notification
Option3
Include the biologist's finding in the written report as a qualified professional opinion using probabilistic framing (e.g., 'could threaten'), appending a scope disclaimer that biological habitat assessment was incidental to the primary engagement, and advising the client that the disclaimer limits the finding's evidentiary weight before the authority
Role
Engineer A (Environmental Principal)
TTL
@prefix case83: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/83#> .
@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#> .
case83:DP10 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP10" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP10" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer A include the in-house biologist's threatened species finding in the written report submitted to the public authority, given that Engineer A verbally disclosed the concern to the developer client but the client has not explicitly invoked confidentiality or instructed omission?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer A Environmental Principal: Obligation to include the biologist's threatened species finding in the written report submitted to the public authority, versus omitting it after verbal disclosure to the developer client." ;
proeth:option1 "Include the biologist's threatened species finding in the written report submitted to the public authority, and notify the developer client in advance of submission that the finding will appear in the report" ;
proeth:option2 "Omit the threatened species finding from the written report on the ground that it falls outside the contracted scope of the environmental analysis, while preserving the verbal disclosure to the client as the record of Engineer A's professional notification" ;
proeth:option3 "Include the biologist's finding in the written report as a qualified professional opinion using probabilistic framing (e.g., 'could threaten'), appending a scope disclaimer that biological habitat assessment was incidental to the primary engagement, and advising the client that the disclaimer limits the finding's evidentiary weight before the authority" ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A (Environmental Principal)" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-27T19:32:42.602345"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 83 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-27T19:32:42.602345
Generated by
ProEthica Case 83 Extraction