DP2
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/93#DP2
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP2
Decision question
Should Engineer A first contact Engineer X directly to counsel him about the certificate of authority deficiency and afford an opportunity to remedy it, or should Engineer A proceed immediately to file a report with the State P licensing board?
Focus
Having verified that XYZ Engineering lacks a certificate of authority in State P, Engineer A must decide how to respond to the discovered violation. The central tension is between the collegial pre-reporting engagement norm — which requires Engineer A to first contact Engineer X directly and afford an opportunity to remedy the apparent inadvertent violation — and the mandatory reporting obligation, which requires eventual escalation to the State P licensing board. Engineer A's status as a direct competitor of Engineer X, having lost Client L to XYZ Engineering, creates a structural conflict of interest that requires him to scrutinize his own motivations before acting.
Option1
Engineer A reaches out directly to Engineer X to advise him of the certificate of authority deficiency, explain the substantive reasons for the requirement and its legal consequences, and afford Engineer X a reasonable opportunity to obtain the certificate before any formal report is filed — consistent with the graduated-duty framework and the professional reciprocity norm.
Option2
Engineer A bypasses collegial contact and files a report directly with the State P licensing board upon confirming the violation, treating the mandatory reporting obligation as unconditional and immediate — but risking violation of the collegial pre-reporting engagement norm and potentially exposing the report to scrutiny as competitively motivated.
Option3
Engineer A concludes that his competitive interest in the outcome — having lost Client L to XYZ Engineering — is so substantial that he cannot act without the appearance of self-interest, and therefore takes no action, neither contacting Engineer X nor reporting to the board — but risks suppressing a legitimate reporting obligation through competitive self-interest, which itself constitutes an ethics violation.
Role
Engineer A Collegial Counsel to Engineer X Before Board Report
TTL
@prefix case93: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/93#> .
@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#> .
case93:DP2 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP2" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP2" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer A first contact Engineer X directly to counsel him about the certificate of authority deficiency and afford an opportunity to remedy it, or should Engineer A proceed immediately to file a report with the State P licensing board?" ;
proeth:focus "Having verified that XYZ Engineering lacks a certificate of authority in State P, Engineer A must decide how to respond to the discovered violation. The central tension is between the collegial pre-reporting engagement norm — which requires Engineer A to first contact Engineer X directly and afford an opportunity to remedy the apparent inadvertent violation — and the mandatory reporting obligation, which requires eventual escalation to the State P licensing board. Engineer A's status as a direct competitor of Engineer X, having lost Client L to XYZ Engineering, creates a structural conflict of interest that requires him to scrutinize his own motivations before acting." ;
proeth:option1 "Engineer A reaches out directly to Engineer X to advise him of the certificate of authority deficiency, explain the substantive reasons for the requirement and its legal consequences, and afford Engineer X a reasonable opportunity to obtain the certificate before any formal report is filed — consistent with the graduated-duty framework and the professional reciprocity norm." ;
proeth:option2 "Engineer A bypasses collegial contact and files a report directly with the State P licensing board upon confirming the violation, treating the mandatory reporting obligation as unconditional and immediate — but risking violation of the collegial pre-reporting engagement norm and potentially exposing the report to scrutiny as competitively motivated." ;
proeth:option3 "Engineer A concludes that his competitive interest in the outcome — having lost Client L to XYZ Engineering — is so substantial that he cannot act without the appearance of self-interest, and therefore takes no action, neither contacting Engineer X nor reporting to the board — but risks suppressing a legitimate reporting obligation through competitive self-interest, which itself constitutes an ethics violation." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A Collegial Counsel to Engineer X Before Board Report" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T15:39:36.111315"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 93 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-02-28T15:39:36.111315
Generated by
ProEthica Case 93 Extraction