DP9
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/87#DP9
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP9
Decision question
After withdrawing from the project, what affirmative steps must Engineer A take to discharge the continuing public welfare obligation to future residents who remain exposed to storm surge danger in a jurisdiction with no building code?
Focus
Engineer A's post-withdrawal obligations to notify local government officials of the identified storm surge risk and to advocate for a protective building code in the jurisdiction, given that withdrawal alone does not eliminate the foreseeable danger to future residents in a no-code jurisdiction.
Option1
After withdrawing, notify local government officials of the identified storm surge risk and the absence of any regulatory standard adequate to address it, and separately engage those officials to advocate for adoption of a building code incorporating the 100-year storm surge standard
Option2
After withdrawing, limit post-project action to retaining the written documentation of the recommendation and Client A's refusal as a professional record available to any authority that independently initiates an inquiry, without proactively contacting government officials absent a specific regulatory trigger or formal complaint mechanism
Option3
After withdrawing, engage local government officials in general terms to advocate for a storm surge building code in the jurisdiction without disclosing Client A's project-specific information, preserving residual confidentiality obligations while still advancing the systemic regulatory gap that the case has revealed
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:DP9 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP9" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP9" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "After withdrawing from the project, what affirmative steps must Engineer A take to discharge the continuing public welfare obligation to future residents who remain exposed to storm surge danger in a jurisdiction with no building code?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer A's post-withdrawal obligations to notify local government officials of the identified storm surge risk and to advocate for a protective building code in the jurisdiction, given that withdrawal alone does not eliminate the foreseeable danger to future residents in a no-code jurisdiction." ;
proeth:option1 "After withdrawing, notify local government officials of the identified storm surge risk and the absence of any regulatory standard adequate to address it, and separately engage those officials to advocate for adoption of a building code incorporating the 100-year storm surge standard" ;
proeth:option2 "After withdrawing, limit post-project action to retaining the written documentation of the recommendation and Client A's refusal as a professional record available to any authority that independently initiates an inquiry, without proactively contacting government officials absent a specific regulatory trigger or formal complaint mechanism" ;
proeth:option3 "After withdrawing, engage local government officials in general terms to advocate for a storm surge building code in the jurisdiction without disclosing Client A's project-specific information, preserving residual confidentiality obligations while still advancing the systemic regulatory gap that the case has revealed" ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-27T16:34:23.760477"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 87 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-27T16:34:23.760477
Generated by
ProEthica Case 87 Extraction