Review Engineer A Peer Review Safety Code Sequential Escalation BER 96-8
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/93#Review_Engineer_A_Peer_Review_Safety_Code_Sequential_Escalation_BER_96-8
Properties
Instance of
PeerReviewSafetyCodeViolationSequentialEscalationObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#PeerReviewSafetyCodeViolationSequentialEscalationObligation
Case context
Review Engineer A served as peer reviewer under a confidentiality agreement, visited Engineer B's firm, and discovered potential safety code violations in Engineer B's design work that could endanger public health, safety, and welfare.
Compliance status
met
Confidence
0.95
Importance
high
Obligated party
Review Engineer A (BER Case 96-8)
Obligation statement
Review Engineer A, having discovered that Engineer B's work may violate state and local safety code requirements during a peer review visit, was obligated to first discuss the issues with Engineer B to seek clarification and early resolution, and if unresolved, to inform Engineer B that the only alternative was to notify proper authorities, and then to do so notwithstanding the confidentiality agreement.
Temporal scope
Upon discovery of potential safety code violations during the peer review visit
Relationships
Source Evidence
Source text
Review Engineer A discovered that Engineer B's work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare
Text references
If they were unable to resolve the issue, Review Engineer A would have an obligation to inform Engineer B that as a professional engineer, Review Engineer A's only alternative is to notify and inform the proper authorities
Review Engineer A discovered that Engineer B's work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare
the appropriate action would be for Review Engineer A to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B in an effort to seek clarification and early resolution of the issues
the confidentiality issue would become a secondary matter
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-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#> .
case93:Review_Engineer_A_Peer_Review_Safety_Code_Sequential_Escalation_BER_96-8 a proeth:PeerReviewSafetyCodeViolationSequentialEscalationObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Review Engineer A Peer Review Safety Code Sequential Escalation BER 96-8" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case93:Review_Engineer_A_Confidentiality_Non-Override_of_Public_Safety_BER_96-8 ;
proeth-core:prevailsOver case93:Review_Engineer_A_Confidentiality_Non-Override_of_Public_Safety_BER_96-8 ;
proeth:casecontext "Review Engineer A served as peer reviewer under a confidentiality agreement, visited Engineer B's firm, and discovered potential safety code violations in Engineer B's design work that could endanger public health, safety, and welfare." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "met" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.95" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case93:Confidentiality-Bounded_Public_Safety_Escalation_Invoked_in_BER_Case_96-8_Peer_Review_Context,
case93:Public_Welfare_Paramount_Invoked_as_Override_of_Peer_Review_Confidentiality_in_BER_96-8 ;
proeth:discoveredincase "93" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T15:18:26.612618+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "93" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T15:18:26.612618+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Review Engineer A (BER Case 96-8)" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Peer Review Safety Code Violation Sequential Escalation Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Review Engineer A, having discovered that Engineer B's work may violate state and local safety code requirements during a peer review visit, was obligated to first discuss the issues with Engineer B to seek clarification and early resolution, and if unresolved, to inform Engineer B that the only alternative was to notify proper authorities, and then to do so notwithstanding the confidentiality agreement." ;
proeth:sourcetext "Review Engineer A discovered that Engineer B's work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare" ;
proeth:temporalscope "Upon discovery of potential safety code violations during the peer review visit" ;
proeth:textreferences "If they were unable to resolve the issue, Review Engineer A would have an obligation to inform Engineer B that as a professional engineer, Review Engineer A's only alternative is to notify and inform the proper authorities",
"Review Engineer A discovered that Engineer B's work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements and could endanger public health, safety, and welfare",
"the appropriate action would be for Review Engineer A to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B in an effort to seek clarification and early resolution of the issues",
"the confidentiality issue would become a secondary matter" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 93 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T15:27:04.023214"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 93 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
93
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-02-28T15:18:26.612618+00:00
First case
93
Generated
2026-02-28T15:18:26.612618+00:00
Attributed to
Case 93 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-28T15:27:04.023214
Generated by
ProEthica Case 93 Extraction