DP2
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/86#DP2
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP2
Decision question
Does Engineer A's confidentiality duty from the prior wetland delineation engagement shield the directly observed, unpermitted wetland fill from disclosure, or does the nature of the observation as an established fact override any residual confidentiality interest?
Focus
Engineer A Confidentiality Scope Relative to Directly Observed Wetland Violation
Option1
Engineer A determines that the directly observed, unpermitted fill is an independently established fact rather than confidential client information, and proceeds to report it to regulatory authorities without treating the prior engagement as a bar to disclosure.
Option2
Engineer A treats all knowledge of the site and client activities, including the observed fill, as protected by the confidentiality obligation arising from the prior engagement, and declines to report on the grounds that professional loyalty to a former client extends to incidentally acquired observations.
Option3
Engineer A defers any disclosure decision and consults legal counsel to determine whether the prior engagement creates enforceable confidentiality obligations that would expose Engineer A to liability for reporting the observed violation, treating the legal question as a prerequisite to any ethical action.
Role
Engineer
TTL
@prefix case86: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/86#> .
@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#> .
case86:DP2 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP2" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP2" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Does Engineer A's confidentiality duty from the prior wetland delineation engagement shield the directly observed, unpermitted wetland fill from disclosure, or does the nature of the observation as an established fact override any residual confidentiality interest?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer A Confidentiality Scope Relative to Directly Observed Wetland Violation" ;
proeth:option1 "Engineer A determines that the directly observed, unpermitted fill is an independently established fact rather than confidential client information, and proceeds to report it to regulatory authorities without treating the prior engagement as a bar to disclosure." ;
proeth:option2 "Engineer A treats all knowledge of the site and client activities, including the observed fill, as protected by the confidentiality obligation arising from the prior engagement, and declines to report on the grounds that professional loyalty to a former client extends to incidentally acquired observations." ;
proeth:option3 "Engineer A defers any disclosure decision and consults legal counsel to determine whether the prior engagement creates enforceable confidentiality obligations that would expose Engineer A to liability for reporting the observed violation, treating the legal question as a prerequisite to any ethical action." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer" ;
prov:wasAttributedTo "claude-sonnet-4-6" ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 86 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Attributed to
claude-sonnet-4-6
Generated by
ProEthica Case 86 Extraction