DP9
Individual
3c0b5a9c
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/83#DP9
Properties
Parent
Decision Point Id
DP9
Decision Question
Given that the developer client gave no confidentiality instruction regarding the threatened species finding, should Engineer A treat the finding as unprotected information subject to the full completeness obligation — and would an explicit written confidentiality instruction have altered that analysis?
Focus
Whether the absence of an explicit client confidentiality instruction removes any confidentiality-based defense for Engineer A's omission, and whether a hypothetical written confidentiality instruction from the developer client would have provided an ethical defense for omitting the threatened species finding from the public authority report.
Option1
Treat the threatened species finding as unprotected information subject to the full completeness obligation under Section II.3.a. and include it in the written report, on the basis that no confidentiality instruction was given and the completeness duty is self-executing
Option2
Seek explicit written guidance from the developer client on whether the threatened species finding should be treated as confidential business information before finalizing the written report, and follow the client's instruction if given — including omitting the finding if the client invokes confidentiality under Section III.4.
Option3
Apply the BER 97-13 framework by treating the absence of an explicit client instruction as equivalent to implied confidentiality in a commercial environmental consulting context, omit the finding from the written report, and advise the client to disclose the finding independently to the public authority if the client determines it is legally required to do so
Role Label
Client
TTL
@prefix rdf: <http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proethica_case_83: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/83> .
<http://proethica.org/ontology/case/83#DP9> a owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP9" ;
rdfs:subClassOf <http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint> .
Metadata
Ontology
Type
Individual
Content Hash
3c0b5a9cba31dd03...Last Updated
2026-03-08 16:29
Extraction Provenance
Generated
2026-02-27T19:32:42.602275
Generated By
ProEthica Case 83 Extraction