Engineer A Graduated Escalation Tidal Crossing Client B Refusal
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/88#Engineer_A_Graduated_Escalation_Tidal_Crossing_Client_B_Refusal
Properties
Instance of
GraduatedEscalationBeforeProjectWithdrawalObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#GraduatedEscalationBeforeProjectWithdrawalObligation
Case context
Client B has directed Engineer A to forgo the specialized hydrologic/hydraulic analysis; Engineer A must pursue graduated escalation before withdrawal is warranted.
Compliance status
unclear
Confidence
0.95
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer A
Obligation statement
Engineer A was obligated to pursue a graduated escalation sequence with Client B: first engaging Client B in discussions about the need for detailed evaluation and disclosure of potential impacts and alternatives; then proposing submission of an engineering report to regulatory agencies and the public; and only withdrawing if Client B refuses both courses of action.
Temporal scope
After Client B's refusal to authorize the specialized 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 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_Tidal_Crossing_Client_B_Refusal a proeth:GraduatedEscalationBeforeProjectWithdrawalObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer A Graduated Escalation Tidal Crossing Client B Refusal" ;
proeth:casecontext "Client B has directed Engineer A to forgo the specialized hydrologic/hydraulic analysis; Engineer A must pursue graduated escalation before withdrawal is warranted." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unclear" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.95" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case88:Graduated_Escalation_Before_Withdrawal_Invoked_Against_Client_B ;
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 "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Graduated Escalation Before Project Withdrawal Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to pursue a graduated escalation sequence with Client B: first engaging Client B in discussions about the need for detailed evaluation and disclosure of potential impacts and alternatives; then proposing submission of an engineering report to regulatory agencies and the public; and only withdrawing if Client B refuses both courses of action." ;
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 "After Client B's refusal to authorize the specialized 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 "2026-02-28T10:32:26.864924"^^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
2026-02-28T10:32:26.864924
Generated by
ProEthica Case 88 Extraction