DP7
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/88#DP7
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP7
Decision question
When Client B refuses to fund the specialized hydraulic analysis and directs Engineer A to omit the upstream flood risk concern, how should Engineer A discharge the disclosure obligation given that the professional judgment is preliminary rather than confirmed?
Focus
Engineer A's obligation to disclose preliminary upstream flood risk judgment to Client B and regulatory authorities when Client B has directed omission of the specialized hydraulic analysis
Option1
Notify Client B in writing of the preliminary flood risk judgment, the professional basis for it, and the legal and reputational consequences of suppression; formally propose including the qualified concern in the regulatory report; and, if Client B refuses both, include the explicitly framed preliminary concern in the engineering report submitted to regulatory agencies without further client authorization
Option2
Document the preliminary flood risk concern internally and in correspondence to Client B, but defer inclusion in any regulatory submission until the specialized subconsultant analysis is completed and confirms the judgment, treating the absence of quantitative confirmation as a sufficient basis for withholding the concern from public-facing documents
Option3
Include the upstream flood risk concern in the engineering report submitted to regulatory agencies immediately upon forming the preliminary judgment, without first providing Client B a written opportunity to respond to the fully informed professional and legal consequences of suppression
Role
Engineer A
TTL
@prefix case88: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/88#> .
@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#> .
case88:DP7 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP7" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP7" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "When Client B refuses to fund the specialized hydraulic analysis and directs Engineer A to omit the upstream flood risk concern, how should Engineer A discharge the disclosure obligation given that the professional judgment is preliminary rather than confirmed?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer A's obligation to disclose preliminary upstream flood risk judgment to Client B and regulatory authorities when Client B has directed omission of the specialized hydraulic analysis" ;
proeth:option1 "Notify Client B in writing of the preliminary flood risk judgment, the professional basis for it, and the legal and reputational consequences of suppression; formally propose including the qualified concern in the regulatory report; and, if Client B refuses both, include the explicitly framed preliminary concern in the engineering report submitted to regulatory agencies without further client authorization" ;
proeth:option2 "Document the preliminary flood risk concern internally and in correspondence to Client B, but defer inclusion in any regulatory submission until the specialized subconsultant analysis is completed and confirms the judgment, treating the absence of quantitative confirmation as a sufficient basis for withholding the concern from public-facing documents" ;
proeth:option3 "Include the upstream flood risk concern in the engineering report submitted to regulatory agencies immediately upon forming the preliminary judgment, without first providing Client B a written opportunity to respond to the fully informed professional and legal consequences of suppression" ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-26T00:52:37.596175"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 88 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-26T00:52:37.596175
Generated by
ProEthica Case 88 Extraction