DP2
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/9#DP2
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP2
Decision question
Should Engineer T escalate the post-accident error concern to Engineer B with full factual disclosure and seek an independent, disinterested professional review of the error question, given that Engineer B's institutional stake in a 'no error' outcome creates a structural conflict of interest that undermines the legitimacy of a purely internal supervisory determination?
Focus
Engineer T's obligation, upon forming a good-faith post-accident belief that the design approach may have constituted a professional error, to escalate that concern to Engineer B with full factual disclosure — and Engineer B's corresponding obligation to conduct a good-faith, conflict-of-interest-free review of that concern — so that the firm's institutional 'no error' determination is reached through a legitimate professional process rather than one distorted by XYZ's litigation exposure.
Option1
Escalate the error concern to Engineer B with full factual disclosure and simultaneously seek independent peer review from a disinterested senior engineer outside XYZ Consulting Engineers, or consult an NSPE ethics resource, before accepting the supervisory 'no error' determination as final
Option2
Escalate the error concern to Engineer B with full factual disclosure and defer to Engineer B's supervisory determination as the firm's institutional resolution, without seeking independent external review
Role
Engineer T
TTL
@prefix case9: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/9#> .
@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#> .
case9:DP2 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP2" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP2" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer T escalate the post-accident error concern to Engineer B with full factual disclosure and seek an independent, disinterested professional review of the error question, given that Engineer B's institutional stake in a 'no error' outcome creates a structural conflict of interest that undermines the legitimacy of a purely internal supervisory determination?" ;
proeth:focus "Engineer T's obligation, upon forming a good-faith post-accident belief that the design approach may have constituted a professional error, to escalate that concern to Engineer B with full factual disclosure — and Engineer B's corresponding obligation to conduct a good-faith, conflict-of-interest-free review of that concern — so that the firm's institutional 'no error' determination is reached through a legitimate professional process rather than one distorted by XYZ's litigation exposure." ;
proeth:option1 "Escalate the error concern to Engineer B with full factual disclosure and simultaneously seek independent peer review from a disinterested senior engineer outside XYZ Consulting Engineers, or consult an NSPE ethics resource, before accepting the supervisory 'no error' determination as final" ;
proeth:option2 "Escalate the error concern to Engineer B with full factual disclosure and defer to Engineer B's supervisory determination as the firm's institutional resolution, without seeking independent external review" ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer T" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-24T22:57:43.526680"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 9 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-24T22:57:43.526680
Generated by
ProEthica Case 9 Extraction