Engineer A Conditional Proceeding Documented Uncertainty Tidal Crossing Alternative Pathway
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/88#Engineer_A_Conditional_Proceeding_Documented_Uncertainty_Tidal_Crossing_Alternative_Pathway
Properties
Instance of
ConditionalProceedingUnderDocumentedUncertaintyObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#ConditionalProceedingUnderDocumentedUncertaintyObligation
Case context
The BER identifies this as an alternative ethical pathway that was not available to Engineer A given the facts, because Engineer A was not comfortable predicting that significant impacts were unlikely.
Compliance status
unclear
Confidence
0.84
Importance
medium
Obligated party
Engineer A
Obligation statement
Had Engineer A been reasonably confident that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely, Engineer A would have been obligated to document that judgment in writing and note in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm it, as the condition for ethically proceeding without the specialized analysis.
Temporal scope
At the time of project assessment, if the engineer's professional judgment supported a finding of unlikely significant impacts
Source Evidence
Source text
The outcome of this case might have been different had Engineer A been comfortable with predicting that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely, in which case Engineer A might have ethically been able to proceed while noting both in writing and in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm that judgment.
Text references
The outcome of this case might have been different had Engineer A been comfortable with predicting that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely, in which case Engineer A might have ethically been able to proceed while noting both in writing and in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm that judgment.
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-core: <http://proethica.org/ontology/core#> .
@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:Engineer_A_Conditional_Proceeding_Documented_Uncertainty_Tidal_Crossing_Alternative_Pathway a proeth:ConditionalProceedingUnderDocumentedUncertaintyObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer A Conditional Proceeding Documented Uncertainty Tidal Crossing Alternative Pathway" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case88:Engineer_A_Public_Welfare_Paramount_Gray_Area_Climate_Change_Tidal_Crossing ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case88:Foreseeable_Third-Party_Flooding_Harm_from_Hydraulic_Capacity_Increase,
<http://proethica.org/ontology/case/88#Potential_Safety_Risk_Without_Confirmed_Imminent_Harm_—_Engineer_A_Climate_Assessment>,
case88:Public_Safety_Paramount_Obligation_Beyond_Legal_Requirements ;
proeth:casecontext "The BER identifies this as an alternative ethical pathway that was not available to Engineer A given the facts, because Engineer A was not comfortable predicting that significant impacts were unlikely." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unclear" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.84" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case88:Conditional_Proceeding_Under_Documented_Uncertainty_Invoked_by_BER_Discussion_Section,
case88:Conditional_Proceeding_Under_Documented_Uncertainty_as_Alternative_Pathway_for_Engineer_A ;
proeth:discoveredincase "88" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-27T14:21:57.794732+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "88" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-27T14:21:57.794732+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "medium" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Conditional Proceeding Under Documented Uncertainty Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Had Engineer A been reasonably confident that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely, Engineer A would have been obligated to document that judgment in writing and note in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm it, as the condition for ethically proceeding without the specialized analysis." ;
proeth:sourcetext "The outcome of this case might have been different had Engineer A been comfortable with predicting that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely, in which case Engineer A might have ethically been able to proceed while noting both in writing and in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm that judgment." ;
proeth:temporalscope "At the time of project assessment, if the engineer's professional judgment supported a finding of unlikely significant impacts" ;
proeth:textreferences "The outcome of this case might have been different had Engineer A been comfortable with predicting that significant public health, safety, and welfare impacts were unlikely, in which case Engineer A might have ethically been able to proceed while noting both in writing and in public statements that more detailed analysis would be required to confirm that judgment." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 88 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T10:32:26.865562"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 88 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
88
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-02-27T14:21:57.794732+00:00
First case
88
Generated
2026-02-27T14:21:57.794732+00:00
Attributed to
Case 88 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-28T10:32:26.865562
Generated by
ProEthica Case 88 Extraction