Error Acknowledgment Obligation Raised By Engineer T
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/9#Error_Acknowledgment_Obligation_Raised_By_Engineer_T
Properties
Instance of
ErrorAcknowledgmentandCorrectiveDisclosureObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#ErrorAcknowledgmentandCorrectiveDisclosureObligation
Applied to
Design approach selection decision
Failure to explore alternative safer design concepts
Balancing with
Employer institutional interests
Professional Competence boundaries
Supervisory Authority in Error Characterization Decisions
Concrete expression
Engineer T believed that not exploring alternative, safer design concepts constituted a design error that the NSPE Code of Ethics required to be acknowledged, and raised this concern with Engineer B before the legal proceedings
Confidence
0.9
Importance
high
Interpretation
Engineer T interpreted the error acknowledgment obligation as applying to the upstream design decision — the failure to explore alternatives — rather than only to technical calculation errors, reflecting a broad reading of what constitutes a professional error requiring disclosure
Invoked by
Engineer T Structural Modification Design Engineer
Tension resolution
Engineer B's supervisory determination that no error requiring acknowledgment had occurred, combined with the attorneys' guidance that the legal process would determine fault, resulted in Engineer T not volunteering an error acknowledgment in the deposition
Source Evidence
Source text
Engineer T expressed a belief that a design error – i.e., not exploring alternative, safer design concepts – had been made and the NSPE Code of Ethics required that the error be acknowledged.
Text references
Engineer T met with XYZ's Chief Structural Engineer, Engineer B, explained the situation, and expressed a belief that a design error – i.e., not exploring alternative, safer design concepts – had been made and the NSPE Code of Ethics required that the error be acknowledged.
Having thus thoughtfully considered the matter, both Engineer T and Engineer B decided that the situation did not merit acknowledgement of 'an error.'
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 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:Error_Acknowledgment_Obligation_Raised_By_Engineer_T a proeth:ErrorAcknowledgmentandCorrectiveDisclosureObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Error Acknowledgment Obligation Raised By Engineer T" ;
proeth:appliedto "Design approach selection decision",
"Failure to explore alternative safer design concepts" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Employer institutional interests",
"Professional Competence boundaries",
"Supervisory Authority in Error Characterization Decisions" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer T believed that not exploring alternative, safer design concepts constituted a design error that the NSPE Code of Ethics required to be acknowledged, and raised this concern with Engineer B before the legal proceedings" ;
proeth:confidence "0.9" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "9" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-24T22:33:49.422835+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "9" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-24T22:33:49.422835+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "Engineer T interpreted the error acknowledgment obligation as applying to the upstream design decision — the failure to explore alternatives — rather than only to technical calculation errors, reflecting a broad reading of what constitutes a professional error requiring disclosure" ;
proeth:invokedby "Engineer T Structural Modification Design Engineer" ;
proeth:principleclass "Error Acknowledgment and Corrective Disclosure Obligation" ;
proeth:sourcetext "Engineer T expressed a belief that a design error – i.e., not exploring alternative, safer design concepts – had been made and the NSPE Code of Ethics required that the error be acknowledged." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "Engineer B's supervisory determination that no error requiring acknowledgment had occurred, combined with the attorneys' guidance that the legal process would determine fault, resulted in Engineer T not volunteering an error acknowledgment in the deposition" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer T met with XYZ's Chief Structural Engineer, Engineer B, explained the situation, and expressed a belief that a design error – i.e., not exploring alternative, safer design concepts – had been made and the NSPE Code of Ethics required that the error be acknowledged.",
"Having thus thoughtfully considered the matter, both Engineer T and Engineer B decided that the situation did not merit acknowledgement of 'an error.'" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 9 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-24T22:41:24.554217"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 9 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
9
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
facts
First discovered
2026-02-24T22:33:49.422835+00:00
First case
9
Generated
2026-02-24T22:33:49.422835+00:00
Attributed to
Case 9 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-24T22:41:24.554217
Generated by
ProEthica Case 9 Extraction