DP3
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/87#DP3
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP3
Decision question
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?
Focus
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.
Option1
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
Option2
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
Option3
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
Role
Engineer
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:DP3 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP3" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP3" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "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?" ;
proeth:focus "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." ;
proeth:option1 "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" ;
proeth:option2 "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" ;
proeth:option3 "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" ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-27T16:34:23.758515"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 87 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-27T16:34:23.758515
Generated by
ProEthica Case 87 Extraction