DP6
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/83#DP6
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP6
Decision question
Given that the developer client gave no explicit confidentiality instruction regarding the threatened species finding, and given that the written report is destined for a public authority conducting a regulatory review, should Engineer A treat the faithful agent obligation as authorizing selective omission of the finding in order to serve the client's interest in a favorable regulatory outcome?
Focus
Whether the developer client's failure to invoke confidentiality removes any confidentiality-based defense for omission, and whether the faithful agent obligation to the client is bounded such that it cannot authorize Engineer A to submit a materially incomplete report to a public regulatory authority
Option1
Include the threatened species finding in the written report, advise the developer client before submission that the finding will appear in the official record, and offer to help the client develop a regulatory response or mitigation strategy
Option2
Treat the absence of an explicit confidentiality instruction as requiring Engineer A to seek the client's affirmative guidance before including the adverse finding in the public submission, and defer inclusion pending the client's response
Option3
Withdraw from the engagement upon concluding that the client's commercial interest in omitting the finding is irreconcilable with the completeness obligation, rather than submitting either an incomplete report or a report the client has not authorized
Role
Engineer A
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:DP6 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP6" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP6" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Given that the developer client gave no explicit confidentiality instruction regarding the threatened species finding, and given that the written report is destined for a public authority conducting a regulatory review, should Engineer A treat the faithful agent obligation as authorizing selective omission of the finding in order to serve the client's interest in a favorable regulatory outcome?" ;
proeth:focus "Whether the developer client's failure to invoke confidentiality removes any confidentiality-based defense for omission, and whether the faithful agent obligation to the client is bounded such that it cannot authorize Engineer A to submit a materially incomplete report to a public regulatory authority" ;
proeth:option1 "Include the threatened species finding in the written report, advise the developer client before submission that the finding will appear in the official record, and offer to help the client develop a regulatory response or mitigation strategy" ;
proeth:option2 "Treat the absence of an explicit confidentiality instruction as requiring Engineer A to seek the client's affirmative guidance before including the adverse finding in the public submission, and defer inclusion pending the client's response" ;
proeth:option3 "Withdraw from the engagement upon concluding that the client's commercial interest in omitting the finding is irreconcilable with the completeness obligation, rather than submitting either an incomplete report or a report the client has not authorized" ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-27T19:32:42.602057"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 83 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-27T19:32:42.602057
Generated by
ProEthica Case 83 Extraction