DP14
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/87#DP14
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP14
Decision question
When Client A explicitly refuses the 100-year storm surge elevation standard on cost grounds, should Engineer A document the recommendation and refusal in writing, continue pursuing discussions to persuade Client A, or withdraw from the project — and in what sequence must these obligations be discharged?
Focus
Engineer A's obligation to formally notify Client A in writing of the 100-year storm surge recommendation and Client A's cost-driven refusal, and to determine whether to continue advocating or withdraw from the project when Client A refuses the safety-critical standard
Option1
Continue pursuing good-faith discussions with Client A to explain the foreseeable risk to future residents, document the 100-year storm surge recommendation and Client A's cost-driven refusal in writing provided to Client A and retained as a professional record, and withdraw from the project if Client A's refusal remains explicit and unambiguous after that written notification
Option2
Withdraw from the project immediately upon Client A's explicit refusal of the safety-critical standard, without further discussion, and provide written documentation of the recommendation and refusal to Client A at the time of withdrawal as a formal record of the professional disagreement
Option3
Remain engaged on the project while continuing to advocate for the 100-year standard through ongoing discussions, on the basis that Engineer A's continued presence preserves residual influence over the design outcome and that a replacement engineer with fewer safety commitments would produce worse results for future residents
Role
Engineer A
TTL
@prefix case87: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/87#> .
@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#> .
case87:DP14 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP14" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP14" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "When Client A explicitly refuses the 100-year storm surge elevation standard on cost grounds, should Engineer A document the recommendation and refusal in writing, continue pursuing discussions to persuade Client A, or withdraw from the project — and in what sequence must these obligations be discharged?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer A's obligation to formally notify Client A in writing of the 100-year storm surge recommendation and Client A's cost-driven refusal, and to determine whether to continue advocating or withdraw from the project when Client A refuses the safety-critical standard" ;
proeth:option1 "Continue pursuing good-faith discussions with Client A to explain the foreseeable risk to future residents, document the 100-year storm surge recommendation and Client A's cost-driven refusal in writing provided to Client A and retained as a professional record, and withdraw from the project if Client A's refusal remains explicit and unambiguous after that written notification" ;
proeth:option2 "Withdraw from the project immediately upon Client A's explicit refusal of the safety-critical standard, without further discussion, and provide written documentation of the recommendation and refusal to Client A at the time of withdrawal as a formal record of the professional disagreement" ;
proeth:option3 "Remain engaged on the project while continuing to advocate for the 100-year standard through ongoing discussions, on the basis that Engineer A's continued presence preserves residual influence over the design outcome and that a replacement engineer with fewer safety commitments would produce worse results for future residents" ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-27T16:34:23.760840"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 87 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-27T16:34:23.760840
Generated by
ProEthica Case 87 Extraction