DP5

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

DP5

When Client B has refused both the specialized hydraulic analysis and authorization to include the upstream flood risk concern in regulatory submissions, must Engineer A first exhaust a graduated written-notification sequence before proceeding to unilateral regulatory disclosure, and at what point does continued project participation without disclosure cross from graduated escalation into complicity with the suppression of safety-relevant information?

Engineer A's obligation to exhaust graduated engagement with Client B — including written notification of legal and reputational risk consequences — before proceeding to unilateral disclosure of the upstream flood risk to regulatory authorities, and the point at which continued project engagement itself constitutes acquiescence to suppression

Deliver written notification to Client B documenting the specific upstream flood risk, the professional basis for the preliminary judgment, the legal and reputational liabilities Client B faces if the harm materializes, and a formal proposal to include the concern in the regulatory report in qualified form — then proceed to independent regulatory disclosure only if Client B refuses after receiving this fully informed notification

Proceed immediately to include the upstream flood risk concern in the engineering report submitted to regulatory agencies without further written notification to Client B, on the grounds that Client B's explicit refusal already constitutes a fully informed rejection and additional written notification would merely delay disclosure of a public safety concern without adding substantive value to the client's decision-making

Continue performing non-suppressive project tasks while formally suspending submission of any regulatory documents pending Client B's reconsideration, and notify Client B in writing that Engineer A cannot submit engineering reports that omit the upstream flood risk concern without authorization to include it — treating the submission hold as the operative escalation mechanism rather than unilateral disclosure

Engineer A