Engineer T Proactive Design Alternatives Presentation Pre-Design Selection
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/9#Engineer_T_Proactive_Design_Alternatives_Presentation_Pre-Design_Selection
Properties
Instance of
CompleteComparativeDesignAlternativesPresentationObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#CompleteComparativeDesignAlternativesPresentationObligation
Case context
Engineer T selected a structural modification approach with constrained-access connection details without presenting alternative design concepts with comparative safety analysis to the client and design team, which the BER identified as a missed opportunity.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.8
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer T
Obligation statement
Engineer T had an opportunity — consistent with the ethical high road identified by the BER — to identify and present multiple structural modification concepts to the client early in the design process, including comparative analysis of construction safety implications, advantages, and disadvantages of each approach, rather than proceeding directly with a single design approach that involved constrained-access connection details.
Temporal scope
During the design development phase, before finalizing the structural modification approach
Relationships
defeasibleUnder
Engineer T Missed Opportunity Without Ethical Violation
Source Evidence
Source text
Case 21-2 suggests it would have been ethically appropriate (an opportunity, not an obligation) for Engineer T to identify not just the straightforward design alternative, but also the more involved structural modification concept, to identify and discuss the benefits and drawbacks of both options, and to place these matters before the client and other members of the design team, possibly including the contractor, early in the process.
Text references
Case 21-2 suggests it would have been ethically appropriate (an opportunity, not an obligation) for Engineer T to identify not just the straightforward design alternative, but also the more involved structural modification concept, to identify and discuss the benefits and drawbacks of both options, and to place these matters before the client and other members of the design team, possibly including the contractor, early in the process.
The BER affirms the 'ethical high road' of considering more than one design approach.
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-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#> .
case9:Engineer_T_Proactive_Design_Alternatives_Presentation_Pre-Design_Selection a proeth:CompleteComparativeDesignAlternativesPresentationObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer T Proactive Design Alternatives Presentation Pre-Design Selection" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case9:Engineer_T_Standard_of_Care_Compliance_Ethical_Sufficiency_Determination ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case9:Engineer_T_Missed_Opportunity_Without_Ethical_Violation ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer T selected a structural modification approach with constrained-access connection details without presenting alternative design concepts with comparative safety analysis to the client and design team, which the BER identified as a missed opportunity." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.8" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case9:Proactive_Design_Alternatives_Presentation_Missed_by_Engineer_T,
case9:Public_Welfare_Paramount_Invoked_By_Engineer_T_Design_Selection ;
proeth:discoveredincase "9" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-24T22:41:04.555269+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "9" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-24T22:41:04.555269+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer T" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Complete Comparative Design Alternatives Presentation Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer T had an opportunity — consistent with the ethical high road identified by the BER — to identify and present multiple structural modification concepts to the client early in the design process, including comparative analysis of construction safety implications, advantages, and disadvantages of each approach, rather than proceeding directly with a single design approach that involved constrained-access connection details." ;
proeth:sourcetext "Case 21-2 suggests it would have been ethically appropriate (an opportunity, not an obligation) for Engineer T to identify not just the straightforward design alternative, but also the more involved structural modification concept, to identify and discuss the benefits and drawbacks of both options, and to place these matters before the client and other members of the design team, possibly including the contractor, early in the process." ;
proeth:temporalscope "During the design development phase, before finalizing the structural modification approach" ;
proeth:textreferences "Case 21-2 suggests it would have been ethically appropriate (an opportunity, not an obligation) for Engineer T to identify not just the straightforward design alternative, but also the more involved structural modification concept, to identify and discuss the benefits and drawbacks of both options, and to place these matters before the client and other members of the design team, possibly including the contractor, early in the process.",
"The BER affirms the 'ethical high road' of considering more than one design approach." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 9 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-24T22:41:24.561949"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 9 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
9
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-02-24T22:41:04.555269+00:00
First case
9
Generated
2026-02-24T22:41:04.555269+00:00
Attributed to
Case 9 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-24T22:41:24.561949
Generated by
ProEthica Case 9 Extraction