DP7
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/87#DP7
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP7
Decision question
When Engineer A has identified a 100-year storm surge standard as the technically defensible safety floor using newly released tools, and Client A refuses on cost grounds in a jurisdiction with no building code, how should Engineer A respond to that refusal?
Focus
Engineer A's obligation to recommend and hold firm to the 100-year storm surge design standard in a no-code jurisdiction, applying the newly released algorithm and historic weather data, despite Client A's explicit cost-driven refusal.
Option1
Maintain the 100-year storm surge standard as a non-negotiable professional floor, present the recommendation in writing with explicit technical basis and transparent acknowledgment of climate projection uncertainty, and continue advocating that standard to Client A before taking any further escalation step
Option2
Present the 100-year standard as the preferred recommendation while offering Client A a formally documented alternative design at a lower storm surge elevation, with written disclosure that the alternative falls below Engineer A's professional safety judgment, allowing Client A to make an informed cost-risk decision
Option3
Qualify the 100-year storm surge recommendation as preliminary pending broader peer validation of the newly released algorithm, and propose engaging an independent coastal engineering expert to co-validate the standard before treating it as the binding professional floor in negotiations with Client A
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:DP7 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP7" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP7" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "When Engineer A has identified a 100-year storm surge standard as the technically defensible safety floor using newly released tools, and Client A refuses on cost grounds in a jurisdiction with no building code, how should Engineer A respond to that refusal?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer A's obligation to recommend and hold firm to the 100-year storm surge design standard in a no-code jurisdiction, applying the newly released algorithm and historic weather data, despite Client A's explicit cost-driven refusal." ;
proeth:option1 "Maintain the 100-year storm surge standard as a non-negotiable professional floor, present the recommendation in writing with explicit technical basis and transparent acknowledgment of climate projection uncertainty, and continue advocating that standard to Client A before taking any further escalation step" ;
proeth:option2 "Present the 100-year standard as the preferred recommendation while offering Client A a formally documented alternative design at a lower storm surge elevation, with written disclosure that the alternative falls below Engineer A's professional safety judgment, allowing Client A to make an informed cost-risk decision" ;
proeth:option3 "Qualify the 100-year storm surge recommendation as preliminary pending broader peer validation of the newly released algorithm, and propose engaging an independent coastal engineering expert to co-validate the standard before treating it as the binding professional floor in negotiations with Client A" ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-27T16:34:23.760331"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 87 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-27T16:34:23.760331
Generated by
ProEthica Case 87 Extraction