Engineer A Graduated Escalation Before Withdrawal Tidal Crossing
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/88#Engineer_A_Graduated_Escalation_Before_Withdrawal_Tidal_Crossing
Properties
Instance of
GraduatedEscalationBeforeProjectWithdrawalObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#GraduatedEscalationBeforeProjectWithdrawalObligation
Case context
Engineer A identified that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade would materially accelerate flood risk for approximately twenty upstream homes; Client B directed Engineer A to forgo the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis unless requested by regulatory authorities.
Compliance status
unclear
Confidence
0.9
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer A
Obligation statement
Engineer A was obligated to pursue a graduated sequence of escalation steps with Client B — first engaging in substantive discussion about the need for specialized hydraulic analysis and public disclosure, then proposing to document the concern in an engineering report for regulatory consideration — before withdrawing from the tidal crossing project.
Temporal scope
Upon Client B's refusal to authorize the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis
Relationships
derivedFromPrinciple
Graduated Escalation Before Withdrawal Invoked Against Client B
Source Evidence
Source text
Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
Text references
Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.
Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.
If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public.
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_Graduated_Escalation_Before_Withdrawal_Tidal_Crossing a proeth:GraduatedEscalationBeforeProjectWithdrawalObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer A Graduated Escalation Before Withdrawal Tidal Crossing" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case88:Engineer_A_Conditional_Project_Withdrawal_After_Client_Refusal_Tidal_Crossing ;
proeth-core:prevailsOver case88:Engineer_A_Conditional_Project_Withdrawal_After_Client_Refusal_Tidal_Crossing ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer A identified that the proposed tidal crossing upgrade would materially accelerate flood risk for approximately twenty upstream homes; Client B directed Engineer A to forgo the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis unless requested by regulatory authorities." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unclear" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.9" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case88:Graduated_Escalation_Before_Withdrawal_Invoked_Against_Client_B ;
proeth:discoveredincase "88" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-26T00:21:20.043237+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "88" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-26T00:21:20.043237+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Graduated Escalation Before Project Withdrawal Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to pursue a graduated sequence of escalation steps with Client B — first engaging in substantive discussion about the need for specialized hydraulic analysis and public disclosure, then proposing to document the concern in an engineering report for regulatory consideration — before withdrawing from the tidal crossing project." ;
proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts." ;
proeth:temporalscope "Upon Client B's refusal to authorize the recommended specialized hydraulic analysis" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer A should engage Client B in discussions about the need for the detailed evaluation and disclosure of the potential impacts on the public and alternatives for the project to mitigate those impacts, and the potential risk to Client B of not evaluating the potential impacts.",
"Failing agreement by Client B to either of these courses of action the BER believes that Engineer A should withdraw from the project.",
"If Client B remains unconvinced, Engineer A should propose to Client B that engineer a provides the potential concern that may necessitate more detailed evaluation in an engineering report for consideration by regulatory agencies and the public." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 88 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-26T00:31:11.071848"^^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
2026-02-26T00:21:20.043237+00:00
First case
88
Generated
2026-02-26T00:21:20.043237+00:00
Attributed to
Case 88 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-26T00:31:11.071848
Generated by
ProEthica Case 88 Extraction