DP3

DecisionPoint
http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint

DP3

In a jurisdiction with no applicable building code, does Engineer A's professional judgment — informed by newly released climate data and a recently developed storm surge modeling algorithm — establish the 100-year storm surge elevation as an ethically mandatory design standard that cannot be reduced in response to Client A's cost-driven objections, and does the availability of superior technical tools create a heightened duty that did not previously exist?

Engineer A's obligation to self-impose the 100-year storm surge elevation as a non-negotiable professional safety standard in a no-code jurisdiction, and whether the absence of a regulatory floor — combined with the availability of newly released climate data and a recently developed algorithm — creates a heightened professional duty that persists regardless of Client A's cost objections.

Apply the newly released algorithm and historic weather data to establish the 100-year storm surge elevation as the professionally required design standard, present it to Client A as a non-negotiable safety floor grounded in current best-available evidence, and advise Client A in writing that building below that elevation creates material public safety risks — while transparently acknowledging that evolving climate data may require future reassessment

Present the 100-year storm surge elevation as a recommended standard supported by newly released data while explicitly qualifying it as a preliminary finding pending broader peer validation of the algorithm, and offer Client A a range of design options spanning from the 100-year projection to a lower elevation with documented risk differentials — on the grounds that epistemic humility about a newly released tool requires presenting the recommendation as one defensible option rather than a mandatory floor

Apply the newly released algorithm to inform the risk assessment but anchor the formal design recommendation to the most protective standard supported by previously established and peer-validated climate models — on the grounds that recommending a standard derived from a newly released and not yet broadly validated algorithm exposes Engineer A to professional liability and may overstate the certainty of the risk finding in a way that undermines the recommendation's credibility with the client

Engineer