Supervisory Error Characterization Authority Obligation Engineer B XYZ
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/9#Supervisory_Error_Characterization_Authority_Obligation_Engineer_B_XYZ
Properties
Instance of
SupervisoryErrorCharacterizationAuthorityObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#SupervisoryErrorCharacterizationAuthorityObligation
Case context
Engineer T brought a good-faith concern about a potential design error to Engineer B; Engineer B reviewed the situation and determined that no error acknowledgment was required, based on the scope of the engagement, Engineer T's lack of construction safety training, and the contractor's failure to raise safety concerns.
Compliance status
met
Confidence
0.8
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer B (Chief Structural Engineer, XYZ Consulting Engineers)
Obligation statement
Engineer B was obligated, upon being consulted by Engineer T regarding whether the design approach constituted a professional error requiring acknowledgment, to conduct a thorough and good-faith technical and ethical review of the concern, to make a considered institutional determination about whether an error occurred and whether acknowledgment was required, and to communicate that determination clearly to Engineer T — bearing institutional responsibility for the firm's professional accountability decision.
Temporal scope
Following the construction accident and Engineer T's post-accident site visit, before the deposition
Relationships
Source Evidence
Source text
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.
Text references
Engineer B responded that Engineer T and XYZ Consulting Engineers had responded professionally to the design project, they had recommended a straightforward structural modification approach, and they were not expected or asked to consider alternative concepts.
Engineer T could not have reasonably known or assessed the level of worker safety risk posed by the connection location.
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 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:Supervisory_Error_Characterization_Authority_Obligation_Engineer_B_XYZ a proeth:SupervisoryErrorCharacterizationAuthorityObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Supervisory Error Characterization Authority Obligation Engineer B XYZ" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case9:Internal_Error_Concern_Escalation_Obligation_Engineer_T_Self-Assessment ;
proeth-core:prevailsOver case9:Internal_Error_Concern_Escalation_Obligation_Engineer_T_Self-Assessment ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer T brought a good-faith concern about a potential design error to Engineer B; Engineer B reviewed the situation and determined that no error acknowledgment was required, based on the scope of the engagement, Engineer T's lack of construction safety training, and the contractor's failure to raise safety concerns." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "met" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.8" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case9:Standard_of_Care_as_Ethical_Floor_Applied_to_Engineer_T_Design,
case9:Supervisory_Authority_In_Error_Characterization_Invoked_By_Engineer_B ;
proeth:discoveredincase "9" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-24T22:35:24.786445+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "9" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-24T22:35:24.786445+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer B (Chief Structural Engineer, XYZ Consulting Engineers)" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Supervisory Error Characterization Authority Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer B was obligated, upon being consulted by Engineer T regarding whether the design approach constituted a professional error requiring acknowledgment, to conduct a thorough and good-faith technical and ethical review of the concern, to make a considered institutional determination about whether an error occurred and whether acknowledgment was required, and to communicate that determination clearly to Engineer T — bearing institutional responsibility for the firm's professional accountability decision." ;
proeth:sourcetext "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." ;
proeth:temporalscope "Following the construction accident and Engineer T's post-accident site visit, before the deposition" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer B responded that Engineer T and XYZ Consulting Engineers had responded professionally to the design project, they had recommended a straightforward structural modification approach, and they were not expected or asked to consider alternative concepts.",
"Engineer T could not have reasonably known or assessed the level of worker safety risk posed by the connection location.",
"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 "2026-02-24T22:41:24.556374"^^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
2026-02-24T22:35:24.786445+00:00
First case
9
Generated
2026-02-24T22:35:24.786445+00:00
Attributed to
Case 9 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-24T22:41:24.556374
Generated by
ProEthica Case 9 Extraction