DP7
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/83#DP7
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP7
Decision question
Should Engineer A include the in-house biologist's threatened species finding in the written report submitted to the public authority, or is verbal disclosure to the developer client a sufficient discharge of the reporting obligation?
Focus
Engineer A's obligation to include the biologist's threatened species finding in the written report submitted to the public authority, given the competing pressures of client service, scope of engagement, and mandatory completeness under NSPE Code Section II.3.a.
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 its inclusion so the client can prepare a regulatory response or mitigation strategy
Option2
Disclose the threatened species finding verbally to the developer client and recommend that the client independently commission a separate biological survey before the public authority submission, treating the in-house biologist's preliminary finding as outside the contracted scope of the written report
Option3
Include a qualified reference to the threatened species concern in the written report using probabilistic framing — noting that a potential habitat risk was identified and recommending further specialist review — while deferring to the client's judgment on whether to commission and submit a full biological assessment to the authority
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:DP7 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP7" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP7" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer A include the in-house biologist's threatened species finding in the written report submitted to the public authority, or is verbal disclosure to the developer client a sufficient discharge of the reporting obligation?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer A's obligation to include the biologist's threatened species finding in the written report submitted to the public authority, given the competing pressures of client service, scope of engagement, and mandatory completeness under NSPE Code Section II.3.a." ;
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 its inclusion so the client can prepare a regulatory response or mitigation strategy" ;
proeth:option2 "Disclose the threatened species finding verbally to the developer client and recommend that the client independently commission a separate biological survey before the public authority submission, treating the in-house biologist's preliminary finding as outside the contracted scope of the written report" ;
proeth:option3 "Include a qualified reference to the threatened species concern in the written report using probabilistic framing — noting that a potential habitat risk was identified and recommending further specialist review — while deferring to the client's judgment on whether to commission and submit a full biological assessment to the authority" ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-27T19:32:42.602130"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 83 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-27T19:32:42.602130
Generated by
ProEthica Case 83 Extraction