The Board cited this case parenthetically to reference a prior situation in which the Owner refused to advise the engineer of the planned peer review, contrasting it with the present case where the Owner reluctantly agreed to notify Engineer A.
The Board cited this case to illustrate how the BER has previously addressed peer review issues, specifically regarding a lead engineer on an independent external review who later sought to participate in a design-build joint venture for the same project.
The Board cited this case to illustrate the obligations of a peer reviewer who discovers potential safety code violations during a review, establishing that the reviewer must discuss concerns with the reviewed engineer and, if unresolved, inform appropriate authorities.
CausalLink_Confidential Review Assignment
By assigning the review under confidentiality, the Owner suppressed the disclosure mechanism that Professional Obligation III.7.a requires, and this suppression is causally significant because it is the origin point of a chain that eventually blocks independent review of the second tower design, leaving a potentially dangerous structure unexamined.
The Owner's granting of consent fulfils the disclosure obligation and opens the path for peer review, making this action causally significant because it is the necessary precondition for Engineer A's subsequent refusal to have any normative weight, since without consent there would have been no opportunity for Engineer A to block the review.
Engineer A's refusal to allow peer review of the second tower violates multiple obligations simultaneously, and the causal gravity of this action is severe because it is the direct cause of the second tower design remaining unreviewed, meaning any latent errors in that design are shielded from correction at the cost of public safety.
Engineer B's refusal to proceed without proper consent fulfils the obligation to avoid unauthorized disclosure, and this refusal matters causally because it redirects the situation toward the Owner, forcing a consent decision that becomes the pivotal moment determining whether the second tower's design errors will ever be independently evaluated.
Engineer B is ethically required to make certain that Engineer A is advised of the planned peer review.
Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer B is ethically required to notify Engineer A of the planned peer review, the notification obligation is not merely a matter of professional courtesy but is structurally grounded in Code provision III.7.a, which conditions peer review of another engineer's work on that engineer's knowledge. This means the notification duty is not waivable by the Owner as a client instruction, because it exists independently of the client relationship as a constraint on the legitimacy of the peer review engagement itself. Engineer B's refusal to proceed covertly was therefore not an optional exercise of professional discretion but a categorical ethical requirement: a covert review would have been procedurally invalid under the Code regardless of its technical quality or ultimate benefit to public safety. The Owner's consent to notification, while practically necessary to allow the engagement to proceed, did not create the notification duty—it merely removed the Owner's obstruction of a pre-existing professional obligation.
The Board's conclusion that Engineer B must ensure Engineer A is notified implicitly resolves the tension between client loyalty and collegial transparency in favor of the latter, but the Board did not fully articulate the limiting principle governing that resolution. The resolution is best understood as follows: Engineer B's duty of loyalty to the Owner under provision I.4 extends only to lawful and ethically permissible instructions. An instruction to conduct a covert peer review falls outside the scope of permissible client direction because it would require Engineer B to act deceptively toward a fellow professional in a manner expressly prohibited by III.7.a. This is not a case where two legitimate ethical duties conflict and must be balanced—rather, the Owner's instruction to maintain secrecy was itself ethically impermissible, meaning no genuine tension existed once the instruction's illegitimacy is recognized. Engineer B's obligation was therefore not to balance competing duties but to decline an instruction that exceeded the Owner's authority to give. This framing also answers the implicit question of whether Engineer B would have been required to withdraw entirely had the Owner refused to consent to notification: yes, withdrawal would have been the only ethically available option, because proceeding covertly would have made Engineer B complicit in a violation of III.7.a.
The Board's explicit conclusions address only Engineer B's notification duty and Engineer A's cooperation duty, but the case facts generate a third, unaddressed ethical dimension: Engineer B's independent obligation regarding the known design defects in the first tower. Once Engineer B became aware—through the engagement itself—of significant design errors in the first tower that posed a risk to public safety, provision I.1's paramount duty to protect public health, safety, and welfare was triggered independently of the peer review question. If the Owner takes no corrective action on the first tower's defects, Engineer B's confidentiality obligations under II.1.c and III.4 do not extinguish the safety disclosure obligation, because those provisions are subordinate to the paramount safety duty under I.1. The Board's silence on this point leaves a critical gap: Engineer B's ethical responsibilities do not terminate at the boundary of the peer review engagement, and the blocking of the second tower's peer review by Engineer A's refusal makes Engineer B's safety escalation obligation regarding the first tower more urgent, not less. Engineer B should be understood as ethically required to report the first tower's known defects to appropriate authorities if the Owner fails to act, regardless of how the peer review dispute is ultimately resolved.
Engineer A's refusal to consent to the peer review, while superficially framed as a defense of professional integrity, is ethically untenable given the specific factual context: significant design errors had already been confirmed in the structurally identical first tower. Under provision III.1.a, engineers are obligated to acknowledge their errors and not distort or alter the facts. Engineer A's refusal to cooperate with a review of the second tower's plans—which share a mirror-image design with a tower already known to contain significant defects—functions in practice as a suppression of facts material to public safety, even if Engineer A frames it as a procedural objection to unsolicited oversight. The ethical weight of Engineer A's cooperation duty is therefore not symmetrical with a routine peer review situation: the pre-existing confirmed defects transform the peer review from an optional quality assurance measure into a public safety necessity, and Engineer A's resistance to it implicates the paramount duty under I.1 in addition to the acknowledgment duty under III.1.a. The Board's implicit conclusion that Engineer A is ethically required to cooperate is thus supported not only by general professional accountability norms but by the specific safety stakes created by the known defects in the first tower.
The Board's framing places the notification duty primarily on Engineer B, but the case facts also implicate an independent ethical obligation on the Owner's part that the Board did not address. The Owner, as the party who commissioned both the original design and the peer review, possessed full knowledge of the design defects in the first tower and had the most direct authority and practical ability to notify Engineer A of the planned review. By instructing Engineer B to conduct the review covertly, the Owner attempted to use Engineer B as an instrument to circumvent a professional norm that exists to protect the integrity of the engineering review process. This instrumentalization of Engineer B is itself ethically problematic: the Owner's instruction was not merely a business preference but an attempt to induce Engineer B to violate a Code provision. The Board's conclusion that Engineer B bears the notification duty should therefore be understood as a floor, not a ceiling—the Owner bears a concurrent and independent obligation not to instruct engineers to act in violation of their professional codes, and the Owner's eventual consent to notification, while necessary, does not fully discharge the ethical concern raised by the initial covert instruction.
In response to Q101: If Owner had insisted on a covert review and refused to consent to notifying Engineer A, Engineer B would have been ethically required to withdraw from the engagement entirely rather than proceed. Code provision III.7.a. conditions the permissibility of reviewing another engineer's work for the same client on the original engineer's knowledge of the review. This is not a procedural preference but a threshold ethical requirement. Because the notification condition is non-waivable from Engineer B's perspective—Engineer B cannot unilaterally satisfy it without Owner's cooperation—and because proceeding covertly would violate the non-deception norm embedded in III.7.a., the only ethically consistent exit is withdrawal. Continuing under a covert mandate would make Engineer B complicit in deceiving Engineer A and would undermine the integrity of the peer review process itself, regardless of the technical quality of the review produced.
In response to Q102: Engineer A's continued involvement on the second tower project despite confirmed design defects in the structurally identical first tower raises an independent ethical concern separate from the peer review dispute. Code provision III.1.a. requires engineers to acknowledge their errors and not distort or alter the facts. Engineer A's refusal to cooperate with the peer review, when combined with the known existence of significant design errors in the first tower, suggests a failure to acknowledge those errors in a professionally meaningful way. If Engineer A is continuing to design the second tower without disclosing the nature and scope of the first tower's defects to the Owner or without proactively seeking corrective review, that posture may itself constitute a breach of the duty to acknowledge errors and a potential threat to public safety under Code provision I.1. The peer review dispute and Engineer A's fitness to continue on the project are therefore analytically distinct but ethically interrelated concerns.
In response to Q103: Engineer B bears an independent safety disclosure obligation that survives and transcends the peer review engagement itself. If Owner takes no corrective action after design defects in the first tower are discovered—and particularly if the second tower's review is blocked—Engineer B's paramount duty under Code provision I.1. to hold public safety above all other considerations would require escalation beyond the client relationship. This obligation is not extinguished by confidentiality provisions under II.1.c. or III.4., because those provisions do not shield information whose suppression would endanger public health, safety, or welfare. Engineer B would be ethically required to report the known defects to relevant authorities if Owner fails to act, even if doing so breaches client confidentiality. The confidentiality constraint yields to the safety override, and Engineer B's capability for safety disclosure escalation must be exercised at the point where inaction creates foreseeable public risk.
In response to Q104: The Board's framing of the notification duty primarily as Engineer B's responsibility is analytically incomplete. Owner, as the party who commissioned the peer review and who possesses the direct contractual relationship with Engineer A, bears an independent and arguably primary ethical obligation to notify Engineer A. The Board's conclusion correctly identifies Engineer B's duty to ensure notification occurs, but this should not obscure that Owner's instruction to conduct a covert review was itself ethically impermissible. Owner's authority as client does not extend to directing engineers to deceive fellow professionals. Framing the notification duty solely through Engineer B's lens risks implying that Owner's covert instruction was merely inconvenient rather than independently wrongful. A complete ethical analysis would recognize that Owner violated a duty of fair dealing toward Engineer A by initially instructing secrecy, and that Engineer B's insistence on notification was a corrective response to Owner's own ethical lapse.
In response to Q201: When Owner explicitly instructs secrecy, the tension between Engineer B's transparency obligation toward Engineer A and Engineer B's duty of loyalty toward Owner as client is resolved in favor of transparency, and the resolution is not close. Code provision I.4. requires Engineer B to act as a faithful agent or trustee of Owner, but faithful agency does not encompass facilitating deception of third parties, particularly fellow licensed professionals whose work is under review. Code provision III.7.a. establishes notification of the original engineer as a precondition for the permissibility of the peer review itself, meaning that Owner's instruction to proceed covertly is an instruction to engage in an ethically impermissible act. Engineer B's loyalty duty to Owner is bounded by the limits of what Owner may ethically instruct. Because Owner cannot ethically instruct a covert review, Engineer B's compliance with that instruction would not constitute faithful agency but rather complicity in a professional ethics violation. Transparency toward Engineer A therefore overrides client loyalty in this specific configuration.
In response to Q202: Engineer A's invocation of professional integrity as grounds for resisting the peer review is ethically untenable given the confirmed existence of significant design defects in the first tower. Code provision I.1. establishes that public safety is paramount and overrides individual professional prerogatives. Engineer A's resistance to the peer review, framed as a matter of professional integrity or autonomy, cannot be sustained when the factual predicate for the review—known design errors in a structurally identical predecessor project—directly implicates public safety in the second tower. Professional integrity, properly understood, requires acknowledgment of errors under III.1.a. and cooperation with legitimate oversight mechanisms, not resistance to them. Engineer A's refusal therefore inverts the meaning of professional integrity: genuine professional integrity in this context would manifest as welcoming, not obstructing, independent review of work that may carry forward the same defects that endangered the first tower.
In response to Q301 and Q304: From a deontological perspective, Engineer B's conduct exemplifies categorical compliance with professional transparency duties. By refusing to conduct a covert review and insisting on notifying Engineer A before proceeding, Engineer B treated the notification requirement under III.7.a. as a non-negotiable duty rather than a cost-benefit calculation. This is precisely the structure of deontological reasoning: the wrongness of the covert review was not contingent on whether it would have produced good outcomes, but on the nature of the act itself—deceiving a fellow professional whose work is under scrutiny. From a virtue ethics standpoint, Engineer B simultaneously demonstrated integrity toward Engineer A, professional courage in resisting Owner's instruction, and collegial respect by insisting that Engineer A be treated as a professional entitled to know of the review. These virtues operated in concert rather than in tension, suggesting that the ethically virtuous path and the deontologically required path converged in Engineer B's conduct.
In response to Q401: If Engineer B had complied with Owner's instruction and conducted the peer review covertly, Engineer B would have violated professional ethics even if the review was technically competent and even if it ultimately served public safety by identifying defects. The ethical violation would be independent of the review's technical quality or its consequences. Code provision III.7.a. establishes notification as a precondition for the ethical permissibility of the review, not merely as a procedural nicety. A technically excellent covert review would still constitute a deceptive act toward Engineer A, violating the honesty and non-deception norms embedded in I.6. and implicitly in III.1.a. Consequentialist arguments that the covert review produced net safety benefits would not cure the deontological violation. Moreover, normalizing covert peer reviews would systematically undermine the trust and procedural fairness that make peer review a legitimate professional institution, producing long-run harms that outweigh any short-run safety benefit from a single covert review.
In response to Q402: If Engineer A had proactively disclosed the design errors in the first tower and voluntarily requested a peer review of the second tower's plans, the ethical obligations of Engineer B and Owner regarding notification and consent would have been materially transformed. The notification requirement under III.7.a. exists primarily to protect the original engineer from being reviewed without knowledge—a protection grounded in professional fairness and the right to respond. If Engineer A had self-initiated the review, that protective rationale would be fully satisfied by Engineer A's own act of disclosure and request. Engineer B's obligation to ensure notification would be discharged by Engineer A's voluntary initiation, and Owner's consent to the review would be implicit in retaining Engineer B pursuant to Engineer A's request. More significantly, Engineer A's proactive disclosure would itself constitute compliance with III.1.a.'s duty to acknowledge errors, transforming the ethical posture of the entire situation from one of resistance and obstruction to one of professional accountability and cooperation.
In response to Q403: Even if the two towers had not been mirror-image designs and the second tower's plans were entirely independent of the first, the known design defects in the first tower would still significantly weaken—though not necessarily eliminate—Engineer A's ethical standing to object to the peer review of the second tower. The defects in the first tower establish a factual record of design error that is directly relevant to Owner's reasonable basis for seeking independent review of Engineer A's subsequent work. Engineer A's professional accountability obligations under III.1.a. and the paramount public safety duty under I.1. do not disappear simply because the second project is technically independent. However, the ethical compulsion for Engineer A to cooperate would be somewhat less acute in the absence of the mirror-image relationship, because the direct inference that the second tower carries forward the same defects would be unavailable. The notification requirement under III.7.a. would remain fully applicable regardless of design similarity, but Engineer A's ethical obligation to affirmatively cooperate—rather than merely not obstruct—would be somewhat more contestable in a fully independent design scenario.
In response to Q404: If Owner had terminated Engineer A from the project before retaining Engineer B for the peer review, Engineer B's ethical obligation to ensure notification of Engineer A would be substantially reduced but not entirely eliminated. The primary purpose of the III.7.a. notification requirement is to protect the original engineer's professional interests and afford procedural fairness in the review of their work. Termination does not erase Engineer A's authorship of the plans under review, nor does it eliminate Engineer A's professional interest in how that work is characterized and what conclusions are drawn from the review. A terminated engineer whose prior work is being formally reviewed retains a cognizable professional interest in knowing that review is occurring, particularly where the review's findings could affect their professional reputation or expose them to liability. However, the strength of the notification obligation diminishes after termination because Owner's ongoing relationship with Engineer A—which III.7.a. implicitly presupposes—no longer exists. Engineer B should still notify Engineer A as a matter of professional courtesy and fairness, but the ethical imperative is less categorical than in the active-engagement scenario.
The tension between Engineer B's duty of loyalty to the Owner as client and Engineer B's obligation of transparency toward Engineer A was resolved by treating client loyalty as a bounded, not absolute, principle. The NSPE Code requires engineers to act as faithful agents of their clients, but that fidelity cannot extend to conduct that deceives or materially harms a fellow professional without notice. When the Owner instructed Engineer B to conduct the review covertly, Engineer B correctly identified that client loyalty ends where professional deception begins. The resolution was not a rejection of client loyalty but a clarification of its limits: Engineer B remained willing to perform the peer review—fully serving the Owner's legitimate interest in technical oversight—while insisting that the procedural condition of notification be met. This case teaches that client loyalty is an instrumental principle subordinate to the foundational duties of honesty and non-deception, and that an engineer may condition acceptance of an engagement on the client's agreement to ethically permissible terms without abandoning the client relationship entirely.
The tension between Engineer A's claimed right to professional integrity and resistance to an unsolicited review, and the paramount duty to protect public safety, was not successfully resolved by Engineer A—and the case reveals that professional integrity, properly understood, cannot be invoked to shield one's own work from legitimate oversight when public safety is demonstrably at risk. Engineer A's refusal to consent to the peer review conflates two distinct concepts: the right to procedural fairness in how a review is conducted, which is legitimate, and the right to veto a review entirely, which is not. Because significant design defects had already been confirmed in the structurally identical first tower, Engineer A's continued resistance to review of the second tower's plans placed professional self-interest in direct conflict with the public safety paramountcy principle. The NSPE Code's requirement that engineers hold public safety paramount operates as a lexically prior obligation that overrides professional pride or reputational concern. This case teaches that professional integrity is not a license for self-insulation from accountability; genuine professional integrity would require acknowledgment of known errors and cooperation with corrective oversight, not obstruction of it.
The interaction among Engineer B's confidentiality obligations, safety disclosure duties, and the scope of the peer review engagement reveals a hierarchical principle structure in which public safety functions as a trump card over confidentiality, but only when the safety risk is concrete and the confidentiality constraint would otherwise prevent corrective action. In this case, the confidentiality principle governing the peer review's findings does not operate in isolation: if the Owner were to receive Engineer B's findings of design defects in the second tower and take no corrective action, Engineer B's safety disclosure obligation would be triggered, overriding the confidentiality constraint. This interaction teaches that confidentiality in professional engineering engagements is always implicitly conditioned on the absence of unaddressed public safety threats—it is a default rule, not an absolute one. Furthermore, the case illustrates that the principle of Engineer B's transparency and notification toward Engineer A is not merely a collegial courtesy but a structural prerequisite that makes the entire peer review ethically coherent: without notification, the review would be tainted by deception, undermining the legitimacy of any safety-protective findings it might produce. Procedural integrity and substantive safety protection are thus mutually reinforcing rather than competing principles.
Should Engineer A cooperate with the peer review of the design work, or refuse participation on the grounds that the review was not consented to or was outside the agreed scope of engagement?
Engineer A (the design engineer whose prior work contained significant errors) refused to cooperate with a peer review process initiated as a quality assurance measure. The core question is whether Engineer A was obligated to participate in and cooperate with the peer review, given that prior errors had been established and the review was a legitimate professional accountability mechanism.
Provide all requested documentation, access, and acknowledgment of prior errors to the peer reviewer, treating the review as a legitimate professional accountability measure regardless of whether it was anticipated in the original engagement.
Engage with the peer review process only after negotiating a written scope agreement that defines what materials will be reviewed, how findings will be used, and what confidentiality protections apply, on the grounds that structured cooperation protects all parties.
Refuse to participate until the review is formally authorized through the original client contract or a new written agreement, arguing that an engineer is not obligated to submit work to an unilaterally imposed review outside the agreed engagement terms.
Should Engineer B treat all findings from the peer review as confidential to the client who commissioned the review, or disclose safety-relevant errors beyond the client when those errors pose a risk to public safety?
Engineer B, serving as peer reviewer, discovered errors in Engineer A's design work and faced questions about the proper scope of confidentiality obligations during the review. The question is whether Engineer B's duty to maintain confidentiality about the review's existence and findings was bounded by safety disclosure obligations when significant design errors were identified.
Report safety-relevant design errors to the appropriate parties beyond the commissioning client, treating the duty to protect public safety as a limit on the scope of peer review confidentiality obligations.
Deliver all findings, including safety-relevant errors, solely to the client who commissioned the review, on the grounds that the client is the appropriate party to decide on remediation and further disclosure.
Present safety findings to the client and formally request authorization to disclose to additional parties, treating client consent as a prerequisite to broader disclosure except in cases of imminent danger.
Should Engineer A consent to and cooperate with the peer safety review of the design, or refuse to participate in the review process?
Engineer A faces a choice about whether to consent to and cooperate with a peer safety review of the design, or to refuse participation on grounds of professional autonomy or client loyalty.
Engineer A grants consent to the peer safety review and provides full access to design documents, calculations, and relevant records, treating the review as a legitimate professional accountability mechanism.
Engineer A declines to consent to or cooperate with the peer review, asserting that the original design authority rests with the design engineer and that unsolicited review is not professionally required.
Engineer A agrees to participate in the review but negotiates limits on scope, requiring that only specific safety-critical elements be examined and that proprietary design methods remain protected.
Should Engineer B accept the peer review assignment under the client's confidentiality restrictions, or decline the assignment unless the scope permits full disclosure of safety-relevant findings?
Engineer B faces a choice about whether to accept a confidential peer review assignment under client-imposed restrictions that limit disclosure of findings, or to decline or reframe the assignment to preserve the integrity of the safety review.
Engineer B accepts the confidential review assignment but explicitly reserves the right to disclose any findings that implicate public safety, notifying the client in advance that safety-critical findings cannot be suppressed by confidentiality terms.
Engineer B declines the assignment on the grounds that the client's confidentiality restrictions are incompatible with the engineer's duty to report safety hazards, and recommends the client engage a reviewer under terms that permit full disclosure.
Engineer B accepts the assignment and conducts the review strictly within the confidentiality scope defined by the client, treating the client's instructions as binding and limiting any report to findings the client has authorized for disclosure.
Should Engineer A cooperate with the peer review by acknowledging identified design errors, or refuse to participate in the review process?
Engineer A faces a choice about whether to cooperate with the peer review process initiated by Engineer B, including acknowledging design errors identified during that review.
Engage with the peer review process, acknowledge the design errors identified by Engineer B, and take corrective action as warranted by the findings.
Participate in the review process but formally contest the identified errors through a documented technical rebuttal, deferring acknowledgment until an independent third party adjudicates the disputed findings.
Refuse cooperation with the peer review on the grounds that it was initiated without Engineer A's prior consent, asserting that the process lacks proper authorization.
Should Engineer B notify the owner of the peer review findings and identified design errors, or limit disclosure in accordance with the client's confidentiality instructions?
Engineer B, acting as peer reviewer, must decide whether to notify the owner of the peer review findings, including identified design errors, given the client's instructions about confidentiality scope.
Provide the owner with full notification of the peer review findings, including identified design errors that carry safety implications, regardless of client instructions to limit disclosure.
Restrict notification to the owner to only those findings the client has authorized for disclosure, honoring the confidentiality boundaries established in the peer review engagement agreement.
Pause notification to the owner and first seek explicit client consent to expand the disclosure scope to include safety-relevant findings, escalating only if consent is denied and safety risk is imminent.
Should Engineer B treat the peer review findings as fully confidential per client instructions, or recognize that safety-related findings fall outside the permissible scope of confidentiality?
Engineer B must determine the appropriate scope of confidentiality when conducting the peer review, balancing the client's instructions to limit disclosure against professional duties triggered by discovering design errors.
Recognize that client confidentiality instructions do not extend to safety-critical design errors, and disclose those findings to appropriate parties even if other review findings remain confidential.
Treat all peer review findings as confidential per the client agreement, on the basis that the engagement contract defines the scope of disclosure and Engineer B lacks independent authority to override it.
Decline to continue the peer review engagement if the client's confidentiality instructions would prevent disclosure of safety-relevant findings, thereby avoiding complicity without unilaterally breaching the confidentiality agreement.
Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
Engineers shall not reveal facts, data, or information without the prior consent of the client or employer except as authorized or required by law or this Code.
Engineers shall acknowledge their errors and shall not distort or alter the facts.
Engineers shall treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness and without discrimination.
Engineers shall not disclose, without consent, confidential information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer, or public body on which they serve.
Engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.
The question arose because Engineer A's refusal to cooperate sits at the intersection of two genuine obligations: the duty to support professional accountability and public safety review, and the procedural requirement that peer review be conducted with proper consent and transparency. The presence of known design defects makes the refusal ethically costly, but the irregular origins of the review request give the refusal a surface plausibility that prevents the answer from being obvious.
This question arose because the Owner's covert review instruction placed Engineer B at the intersection of two genuine professional obligations, one requiring transparent collegial notification and one permitting client-directed confidentiality, with no clear hierarchical rule resolving which obligation is categorical under deontological reasoning. The presence of known design defects and Engineer A's active refusal to cooperate sharpened the tension, because those facts could either strengthen the case for overriding confidentiality in the name of transparency or reinforce the Owner's legitimate interest in an independent undisclosed assessment.
This question arose because the data record combines two distinct facts, confirmed prior design defects and an active refusal to permit review of a second structure, in a way that makes Engineer A's refusal look like obstruction of legitimate safety oversight rather than a neutral procedural choice. The deontological framing sharpens the question further because it asks whether the duty to acknowledge errors and cooperate with oversight is categorical once defects are known, or whether procedural irregularities in how the review was initiated can suspend that duty.
This question arose because the data established a direct causal chain from Engineer A's refusal to a structurally dangerous design remaining unreviewed, which activates a consequentialist warrant holding that any act producing net harm to public safety is ethically impermissible. The question persists because a competing warrant holds that the net harm is not attributable solely to Engineer A's refusal when other actors, including Engineer B and the Owner, retained independent obligations to escalate the safety concern, making the causal and moral responsibility genuinely contested.
The question arose because Engineer B's conduct involved two distinct acts, refusing the covert review and demanding notification of Engineer A, each of which can be evaluated separately under virtue ethics, and the combination of those acts in a context of known design defects and Owner pressure created genuine uncertainty about whether both acts together reflect integrated virtue or whether one of them exceeds what professional integrity and collegial respect actually require. The presence of Engineer A's refusal to cooperate further complicated the picture, because it raised the question of whether collegial respect is owed to a professional who is actively obstructing a safety-relevant review.
This question arose because the data presents a scenario where the procedural wrong of covert review and the substantive good of technically competent safety-serving review are fully separable, forcing a judgment about whether professional ethics is violated by the method of conduct even when the result is defensible. The tension between the Collegial Notification Principle and the Public Safety Paramount principle, each grounded in the NSPE Code of Ethics, means that compliance with one norm appears to require deviation from the other, and no single warrant cleanly resolves the conflict without a rebuttal condition undermining it.
This question arose because the original case analysis assumed an adversarial posture in which Engineer A refused consent and the Owner instructed covert review, generating specific obligations for Engineer B and the Owner as corrective responses to that posture. Asking whether proactive disclosure by Engineer A would have changed those obligations contests the warrant structure at its foundation, since the obligations of Engineer B and the Owner were derived from Engineer A's non-cooperation as the triggering data, and removing that data by substituting voluntary transparency forces a re-examination of whether the same conclusions still follow.
This question arose because the original case rested on a tight logical link between the known defects in the first tower and the ethical justification for overriding Engineer A's objection to peer review of the second tower. Once that link is severed by stipulating design independence, the argument structure is contested at the warrant level, forcing a new question about whether professional accountability is person-bound or design-bound.
This question arose because the original notification obligation was constructed around Engineer A's concurrent presence on the project, and the hypothetical of prior termination strips away that contextual anchor, forcing a determination of whether the duty is grounded in professional courtesy toward a colleague or in procedural fairness to an active participant. The tension between the Collegial Notification Principle and the Owner Client Loyalty Limits Notification principle is sharpened rather than resolved by termination, because the Owner's authority to discharge Engineer A does not automatically transfer to Engineer B the right to treat that engineer as a stranger to the review.
This question arose because Engineer B was placed in a situation where the Owner's covert review instruction directly contested the professional norm requiring that a reviewed engineer be made aware of the review. The tension between client instruction limits and collegial notification created genuine uncertainty about whether Engineer B bore an independent duty to notify Engineer A, or whether that duty belonged to the Owner alone.
This question arose because Owner removed the procedural condition, Engineer A's consent, that would have made Engineer B's participation straightforwardly permissible, forcing Engineer B into a situation where every available path carries a distinct ethical cost. The question is not merely about procedure but about whether the prohibition on covert review is absolute or whether it yields when the alternative is leaving a known public safety risk unexamined.
This question arose because the case presents two distinct wrongs by Engineer A, namely prior design defects and present obstruction of review, and the combination raises a question that neither wrong alone would force. The data of known defects plus active peer review refusal creates pressure on the warrant requiring engineers to be competent and accountable, and that pressure generates an independent question about whether continued project involvement is itself an ethical violation, separate from any dispute about how the peer review should be conducted.
This question arose because Engineer B possesses knowledge of a concrete public safety risk from the first tower defects but acquired that knowledge within a confidential professional review context where the Owner, not Engineer B, holds primary authority over corrective action. The tension between the paramount duty to public safety and the bounded nature of a peer reviewer's role creates genuine uncertainty about whether Engineer B's obligation to act extends beyond the client relationship and into independent reporting to authorities.
The question emerged because the Board's analysis focused on Engineer B's conduct under NSPE Code obligations while leaving unexamined whether the Owner, by instructing a covert review and controlling access to Engineer A, independently triggered the Peer Review Notification Obligation. The structural gap between the Owner's causal role in creating the covert review state and the Board's framing of notification as Engineer B's burden alone is what made this question contestable.
This question arose because the Owner placed Engineer B in a structural conflict by instructing secrecy at the precise moment when professional norms independently required Engineer B to notify Engineer A of the review. The conflict is not resolvable by simple priority rules because both the transparency obligation and the client loyalty obligation are grounded in recognized professional duties, and the Owner's explicit instruction transforms what might otherwise be a procedural question into a direct test of which duty takes precedence when they cannot both be satisfied.
This question emerged because two independently valid professional obligations collided at the moment Engineer A refused peer review while known design defects already existed in a related structure. The covert origin of the review request gave Engineer A a procedurally grounded basis for resistance, but the presence of confirmed prior errors made that resistance appear to obstruct a safety-critical process, forcing a direct contest between professional integrity as a personal prerogative and public safety as a paramount duty.
This question arose because two legitimate structural features of professional peer review pulled in opposite directions once Engineer A refused consent. The data of prior design errors and a blocked review triggered both the Owner's authority to protect public safety through independent oversight and Engineer A's residual claim to procedural fairness in how that oversight is conducted, and neither warrant fully displaced the other given the simultaneous presence of a covert review instruction and a notification constraint.
This question arose because Engineer B entered the engagement under confidentiality terms that were designed to govern ordinary review scope, but the discovery of known design defects in the first tower and the blocking of review of the second tower created a situation those terms were not designed to address. The gap between what the confidentiality agreement covers and what the safety obligation demands is exactly the contested space that generates the question.
Is Engineer B ethically required to make certain that Engineer A is advised of the planned peer review?
If Owner had never consented to notifying Engineer A and had insisted on a covert review, would Engineer B have been ethically required to withdraw from the engagement entirely rather than proceed?
Does Engineer A's continued involvement on the second tower project—despite known design defects in the first tower—itself raise an independent ethical concern about Engineer A's fitness to remain on the project, separate from the peer review dispute?
What obligation, if any, does Engineer B have to report the discovered design defects in the first tower to relevant authorities or the public if Owner takes no corrective action, independent of the peer review question?
Should the Board have addressed whether Owner bears an independent ethical obligation to proactively notify Engineer A of the peer review, rather than framing the notification duty primarily as Engineer B's responsibility?
Is Engineer A ethically required to cooperate with the peer review of Engineer B?
Does Engineer B's obligation of transparency and notification toward Engineer A conflict with Engineer B's duty of loyalty and confidentiality toward the Owner as client, and how should that tension be resolved when the Owner explicitly instructs secrecy?
Does Engineer A's invocation of professional integrity and resistance to an unsolicited peer review conflict with the paramount duty to protect public safety, particularly when known design defects already exist in the first tower?
How does Engineer A's right to professional accountability review—implying some degree of procedural fairness in how the review is conducted—conflict with the Owner's authority as client to commission independent technical oversight without the original engineer's consent?
Does Engineer B's safety disclosure obligation—requiring escalation when public welfare is at risk—conflict with the confidentiality constraints governing the scope of the peer review engagement, and at what point does safety override confidentiality?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer B fulfill a categorical duty of professional transparency by insisting that Engineer A be notified of the peer review, regardless of the Owner's instructions to the contrary?
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A violate a professional duty to acknowledge errors and cooperate with legitimate oversight when refusing to consent to the peer review, given that known design defects in the first tower had already been discovered?
From a consequentialist perspective, did Engineer A's refusal to cooperate with the peer review create a net harm to public safety by leaving the second tower's design unreviewed despite known defects in the structurally identical first tower?
From a virtue ethics standpoint, did Engineer B demonstrate the virtues of professional integrity and collegial respect by simultaneously refusing to conduct a covert review and insisting on notifying Engineer A, thereby balancing loyalty to the client with honesty toward a fellow professional?
If Engineer B had complied with the Owner's instruction and conducted the peer review covertly without notifying Engineer A, would Engineer B have violated professional ethics even if the review itself was technically competent and ultimately served public safety?
If Engineer A had proactively disclosed the design errors in the first tower and voluntarily requested a peer review of the second tower's plans, would the ethical obligations of Engineer B and the Owner regarding notification and consent have been materially different?
If the two towers had not been mirror-image designs and the second tower's plans were entirely independent of the first, would the known design defects in the first tower still ethically preclude Engineer A from objecting to the peer review of the second tower?
If the Owner had terminated Engineer A from the project before retaining Engineer B for the peer review, would Engineer B still have been ethically obligated to ensure Engineer A was notified of the review, or does termination fully discharge that notification duty?
Because Owner retained Engineer B to review Engineer A's plans without Engineer A's knowledge, and because III.7.a conditions such a review on the other engineer's awareness, the board concluded that Engineer B was ethically required to ensure notification occurred before proceeding, regardless of the Owner's initial preference for secrecy.
Because the mirror-image relationship made it reasonable to infer that the first tower's defects were present in the second, the board concluded that Engineer A's ethical standing to object to the peer review was significantly weakened, while acknowledging that a fully independent design would reduce but not eliminate that weakening given the prior defect record.
Given that Engineer A's employment had ended before Engineer B was retained, the board concluded that the structural premise of III.7.a., an ongoing client relationship requiring procedural fairness, was weakened, so the notification duty survived as a matter of professional courtesy rather than as a non-waivable threshold requirement.
Given that the Owner's instruction demanded covert conduct that would deceive Engineer A, the board concluded that client loyalty ends at the point where following client instructions requires professional deception, and that Engineer B correctly conditioned acceptance of the engagement on the Owner's agreement to permit notification.
Given that confirmed defects in the first tower created a concrete safety risk for the second tower of identical design, the board concluded that Engineer A's refusal to cooperate placed professional self-interest in direct conflict with the paramount duty to protect public safety, and that genuine professional integrity required cooperation with corrective oversight rather than obstruction of it.
Given that confirmed defects in the first tower made a concrete safety risk foreseeable, the board concluded that confidentiality in this engagement was always implicitly conditioned on the Owner taking corrective action, and that procedural notification to Engineer A was not merely collegial courtesy but a structural requirement that preserved the ethical legitimacy of any safety-protective findings the review might produce.
Given that the Owner's insistence on secrecy made it impossible for Engineer B to satisfy the notification requirement that III.7.a. treats as a precondition for permissible peer review, the board concluded that Engineer B would have been ethically required to withdraw, because continuing under a covert mandate would make Engineer B complicit in deceiving Engineer A and would undermine the integrity of the peer review process itself.
Because the first tower's defects were confirmed and the second tower was structurally identical, the board found that Engineer A's continued involvement without disclosure or corrective action was not a neutral professional posture but a failure to acknowledge known errors, raising an independent fitness concern analytically separate from the peer review dispute itself.
Because owner inaction combined with a blocked peer review left known structural defects unaddressed in a project affecting public safety, the board concluded that Engineer B's duty under I.1. required escalation to relevant authorities, and that confidentiality constraints under II.1.c. and III.4. yielded to that safety override rather than extinguishing it.
Because Owner held the direct contractual relationship with Engineer A and issued the covert instruction, the board found that framing notification solely as Engineer B's duty obscured Owner's independent ethical lapse, and that a complete analysis required recognizing Owner's own obligation of fair dealing toward Engineer A as the primary source of the notification duty.
Because III.7.a. makes notification of the original engineer a precondition for a permissible peer review, the board found that Owner's covert instruction asked Engineer B to engage in an ethically impermissible act, and that compliance would have constituted complicity rather than faithful agency, resolving the apparent tension decisively in favor of transparency toward Engineer A.
Because III.7.a independently conditions the legitimacy of a peer review on the reviewed engineer's knowledge, the board concluded that the Owner's consent to notification did not create the duty but only removed an obstruction to a pre-existing obligation, and that a covert review would have been procedurally invalid under the Code regardless of its technical quality.
Because confirmed defects in the first tower created a direct safety concern for the structurally identical second tower, the board concluded that Engineer A's resistance to the peer review inverted the meaning of professional integrity, since genuine professional integrity in these circumstances would have manifested as cooperation with independent review rather than obstruction of it.
Because the Owner's instruction to proceed covertly would have made Engineer B complicit in a violation of III.7.a rather than merely requiring a difficult professional judgment call, the board concluded that Engineer B had no discretion to comply, and that withdrawal would have been the only ethically available option had the Owner refused to consent to notification.
Because Engineer B acquired knowledge of significant safety-threatening defects in the first tower through the engagement, and because Engineer A's refusal to cooperate with the second tower review left the public safety risk unaddressed, the board's framework implies that Engineer B's ethical obligations extend beyond the peer review dispute to require safety escalation if the Owner fails to act, with confidentiality provisions subordinated to the paramount duty under I.1.
Because the second tower shared a mirror-image design with a tower already known to contain significant defects, Engineer A's refusal to cooperate with the peer review functioned in practice as a suppression of facts material to public safety, and the board concluded that the cooperation duty was supported not only by general professional accountability norms but by the specific and elevated safety stakes that the confirmed first-tower defects created.
Because Owner held complete information about the defects and had direct authority over both engineers, the board concluded that framing the notification duty solely on Engineer B understated Owner's independent obligation, given that Owner's covert instruction was an attempt to induce Engineer B to violate a professional norm rather than a permissible exercise of client authority.
Because Engineer B treated the notification requirement as a non-negotiable professional duty rather than a factor to weigh against client preferences, the board concluded that Engineer B fulfilled both the deontological obligation under III.7.a and the virtue ethics standard of professional integrity and collegial respect, with both frameworks pointing to the same conduct under these facts.
Because III.7.a makes notification a precondition rather than a preference, the board concluded that a technically excellent covert review would still constitute an ethical violation, given that the deceptive act toward Engineer A is wrong in itself and that permitting outcome-based justifications would erode the institutional legitimacy of peer review over time.
Because the notification requirement exists to protect Engineer A from unsolicited scrutiny without knowledge, the board concluded that Engineer A's voluntary initiation of the review would discharge that protective purpose, making the separate notification and consent obligations of Engineer B and Owner functionally redundant under those altered facts.
property=cause; causal chain's cause text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
property=effect; causal chain's effect text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
property=responsibleAgent; causal chain's responsibleAgent text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
property=causedByAction; causal chain's causedByAction text resolved to the case individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
construction of first tower before construction of second tower
Owner is developing a site with two mirror-image towers to be built two years apart.
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.6
Public safety requires that engineers not obstruct legitimate peer review processes when prior errors in their work give reasonable grounds for independent verification of a mirror-image design.
The obligation to cooperate with peer review intensifies when the engineer under review has known errors in related work, because the combination of accountability, client duty, and public safety paramountcy all converge on the same required conduct.
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.7
Loyalty to a client is bounded by independent professional obligations. An engineer may follow client instructions about the manner of professional services but not instructions that require violating duties owed to third parties.
Client authority over the scope and conditions of a peer review does not extend to directing the reviewer to violate professional obligations governing collegial notification.
Confidentiality in peer review is a legitimate but bounded obligation whose limits are defined by public safety requirements and collegial notification duties.
source_field=interpretation; confidence=0.75
Confidentiality in professional review engagements must be interpreted to distinguish between protecting sensitive findings from unauthorized disclosure and improperly concealing the existence of a review from the engineer whose work is being evaluated.
property=initiates; happening's initiates state text resolved to the case State(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (Event Calculus fluent transition)
Confidential Peer Review Assigned; Engineer A Unaware of Review
Design Deficiency Known; First Tower Construction Risk; Owner Distrust of Engineer A
Peer Review Suspended; Unreviewed Design Risk; Ethical Dispute Active
Engineer A Non-Cooperation State; Peer Review Obstruction
Unverified Design State; Potential Construction Risk
property=guidedByPrinciple; action's guidedByPrinciple text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
Public Health Safety and Welfare Paramount
property=violatesObligation; action's violatesObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
property=fulfillsObligation; action's fulfillsObligation text resolved to the case Obligation/Principle individual(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select (obligation-engagement grounding)
Public Health Safety and Welfare Paramount; Professional Integrity; Client Service
Obligation to Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare; Obligation to Acknowledge Errors; Obligation to Act in Client Best Interests; Obligation to Take Responsibility for Professional Actions
Public Health Safety and Welfare Paramount; Professional Integrity
property=constrainedEntity; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
Design engineers participating in design-build procurements
property=obligatedParty; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
property=invokedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
property=possessedBy; component party text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM select
Owner Project Owner; Engineer B Peer Review Engineer
Engineer B Peer Review Engineer; Owner Project Owner
Engineer B Peer Reviewer; Owner Project Owner
Peer reviewer bound by confidentiality agreement
Owner Project Owner; Engineer B Peer Reviewer
Engineer B (peer reviewer role, by analogy from BER Case 96-8)
Engineer B Peer Reviewer; Engineer B Peer Review Engineer
relation_type=has_provider; property=hasClient
relation_type=reviewed_by; property=workReviewedBy
Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B
relation_type=has_client; property=hasClient
relation_type=peer; property=professionalPeerOf
Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A
relation_type=reviews; property=reviewsWorkOf
property=availableTo; resource used_by text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
Engineer A's duty to take responsibility for design actions and acknowledge errors required cooperation with the peer review rather than obstruction, particularly given the identified defects in the first tower.
Engineer A was ethically required to participate fully and cooperatively in Engineer B's peer review of the second tower plans, given the known design defects discovered in the first tower and the resulting public safety risk.
Engineer A's obligation to hold paramount the health, welfare, and safety of the public was one of the converging reasons the board found that refusal to cooperate with the peer review would be unethical, given the known design defects in t
The discovery of significant errors in the first tower plans raised legitimate questions about whether Engineer A's designs for the second tower met professional competence standards, making peer review a reasonable verification mechanism.
The owner's instruction to Engineer B to conduct the peer review without notifying Engineer A exceeded the permissible scope of client direction, because complying would have required Engineer B to violate Professional Obligation III.7.a.
Engineer B correctly declined to conduct the peer review when the owner instructed that Engineer A not be informed of the review, invoking the professional obligation that engineers may not review a colleague's work for the same client with
Engineer B insisted on notifying Engineer A before commencing the peer review, refusing to conduct a covert review despite the Owner's instruction to proceed without notification.
As illustrated by BER Case 96-8 cited in this case, a peer reviewer bound by a contractual confidentiality agreement must still disclose safety code violations to appropriate authorities if the original engineer refuses to resolve them, dem
Engineer B's confidentiality obligation to the Owner covered the contents and findings of the peer review but did not extend to concealing the existence of the review from Engineer A, because concealment would violate a separate professiona
Engineer B demonstrated professional integrity by insisting on notifying Engineer A before proceeding with the peer review, refusing to allow the Owner's preference for secrecy to override an independent professional obligation.
Engineer B's duty of loyalty to the Owner did not extend to complying with the instruction to conduct a covert review, because that instruction required Engineer B to violate the professional obligation to notify Engineer A.
Engineer A was obligated to acknowledge the errors found in the first tower plans and to cooperate with the peer review of the second tower plans as an expression of professional accountability, rather than refusing cooperation to protect r
Engineer A was obligated to consent to the peer review of the second tower plans given that significant errors had already been discovered in the first tower plans, because public safety required independent verification of the second tower
Engineer A was obligated to acknowledge the limitations raised by the discovery of significant errors in the first tower plans and to support verification that the second tower plans met required competence standards, rather than obstructin
Engineer A was obligated to cooperate fully with Engineer B's peer review of the second tower plans, given the known design errors in the first tower and the public safety implications of the second tower design.
Engineer A was obligated to cooperate with the peer review process as an expression of professional accountability, given that prior significant errors in related work had been established and the review was a legitimate quality assurance m
Engineer B was obligated to notify Engineer A before commencing the peer review of Engineer A's second tower plans, regardless of the Owner's instruction to proceed covertly.
Engineer B was obligated to ensure that Engineer A had knowledge of the planned peer review before commencing it, and was correct to decline the Owner's instruction to conduct the review without notifying Engineer A.
A peer reviewer operating under a contractual confidentiality agreement who discovers safety code violations must first seek resolution with the reviewed engineer, then notify the reviewed engineer of the intent to report, and then report t
Engineer B was obligated to protect the contents and findings of the peer review as confidential to the Owner, but this confidentiality obligation did not extend to concealing the existence of the review from Engineer A.
Engineer B's confidentiality obligation to the Owner covered the contents and findings of the peer review but did not extend to concealing the existence of the review from Engineer A, because NSPE III.7.a requires that the reviewed engineer
Engineer B was obligated to refuse the Owner's instruction to conduct a covert peer review of Engineer A's work without Engineer A's knowledge, because such concealment would violate professional transparency and collegial duties.
Engineer B was obligated to decline the Owner's instruction to conduct a covert review, recognizing that the duty of loyalty to the Owner did not extend to complying with a directive that required violating professional ethics obligations t
Owner was obligated, as a condition of proceeding with the peer review, to notify Engineer A of the planned review, and correctly agreed to do so after Engineer B declined to proceed without such notification.
property=affects; state affectedParties text resolved to the case Agent(s) by embedding shortlist + LLM multi-select
Owner; Engineer A; Engineer B; Future occupants and public
property=activatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
Peer review is properly initiated with required notification given
Engineer whose work is under review refuses to cooperate with the reviewing engineer
property=activatesConstraint; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
Non-cooperation is ethically impermissible when known design defects are present
Owner must choose between proceeding under difficult conditions, abandoning the review, or replacing the original engineer
property=activatesObligation; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
Obligation on the non-cooperating engineer to act in the client's best interests
property=terminatedByEvent; description resolved to the endpoint by embedding shortlist + LLM select
Engineer agrees to cooperate with the peer review
Design defects in prior work have been identified and confirmed
Non-cooperation with peer review is ethically impermissible when known defects are present
Concealment or obstruction of review is prohibited
Heightened obligation to cooperate with peer review
Obligation to acknowledge errors and take responsibility
Engineer A is notified of the peer review and refuses consent
Reviewing professional must weigh proceeding against the subject professional's objection
Obligation to determine whether consent is ethically required before proceeding
Reviewer may not disclose findings to third parties beyond the scope of the agreement
Confidentiality does not override duty to report confirmed public safety risks
Obligation to discuss safety concerns with the reviewed engineer before escalating
Obligation to protect confidential findings from unauthorized disclosure
Peer review or evaluation is commissioned without notifying the professional whose work is under review
Reviewing professional should insist on notifying the subject professional
Reviewing professional should not proceed under covert conditions
Transparency duty toward peer professional
Obligation to object to or refuse covert review conditions
Professional courtesy notification obligation
Owner notifies Engineer A of the planned peer review per Professional Obligation III.7.a.
property=fromEntity; temporal relation's fromEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
When selected as a reviewer for the program, Engineer A contractually agreed not to disclose confidential information acquired in the review. Engineer A was assigned to review the design work of Engineer B's firm on several projects.
Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A. When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A...
property=toEntity; temporal relation's toEntity text resolved to the case Action/Event individual by embedding shortlist + LLM select
As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A. Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower.
As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A.
Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B.
When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A, Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
Design-Build Contract Peer Review Consent
The case text notes that peer review consent is increasingly embedded in design-build procurement documents, often accompanied by confidentiality protections and opportunities for the reviewed engineer to explain design decisions. This practice is distinguished from the present case, where no such pre-consent existed.
When design-build bid or contract documents specify that participation constitutes consent to peer review, the participating engineer has pre-authorized the review by contracting. This contractual consent mechanism satisfies the knowledge and notification requirements that would otherwise apply under professional ethics codes.
Design-build contract practice, NSPE peer review guidance
From the time of bid submission or contract execution through project completion
Frequently that disclosure is accompanied by an agreement that the client will require the peer reviewer to keep the results of the peer review confidential or, at the very least, the original designer will be provided with an opportunity to explain (and defend) the design decisions
Such confidentiality agreements encourage the firm being reviewed to cooperate fully, build trust, and support a collegial atmosphere
the possibility that the client will obtain a peer review is specified in design-build bid or contract documents to the effect that any party who bids or contracts with the client has, by participating, consented to the peer review
Engineer A Competence Defect Acknowledgment
Significant design errors were found in Engineer A's first tower plans. This history of confirmed errors constrained Engineer A's ability to assert professional authority against independent review of the second tower, as the competence basis for that authority had been called into question.
The discovery of significant errors in Engineer A's first tower design created a competence constraint limiting Engineer A's professional standing to resist independent verification of the second tower design, because the error history raised legitimate questions about the reliability of Engineer A's work.
NSPE Code of Ethics; professional competence standards for engineering practice
Following discovery of significant errors in the first tower design
Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Competence Constraint'
Engineer A held domain expertise as the original designer of both towers, though the discovery of significant errors in the first tower plans raised questions about the adequacy of that expertise as applied.
Engineer A designed both towers; significant errors in the first tower's plans prompted the Owner to commission a peer review of the second tower plans.
Serving as the original design engineer for both towers on a two-tower development site.
Owner is developing a site with two mirror-image towers
several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Domain Expertise'
Engineer A Norm Competence Accountability
Engineer A was required to recognize and apply the professional norm that a design engineer must cooperate with legitimate peer review processes, particularly following discovery of significant errors, and to understand that personal objection does not override this norm.
Engineer A refused to consent to peer review of the second tower despite the professional norm requiring cooperation with quality assurance processes after significant errors were discovered.
Engineer A's refusal to consent indicates a failure to apply the relevant professional norm, which was nonetheless required for fulfillment of the Professional Accountability Cooperation Obligation.
Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Norm Competence'
Engineer A was required to possess and exercise the practical capability to cooperate fully with Engineer B's peer review of the second tower plans, including providing access to documentation and engaging constructively with the review process.
Engineer A refused to consent to the peer review, creating a situation in which the Owner faced three options: proceed under difficult circumstances, proceed without the review, or proceed without Engineer A. The Board found refusal to cooperate was unethical.
The Board's finding that conducting a peer review without Engineer A's cooperation would be a fruitless exercise, and that Engineer A's full cooperation was ethically required given the known design defects in the first tower.
Such confidentiality agreements encourage the firm being reviewed to cooperate fully, build trust, and support a collegial atmosphere.
it will likely be a fruitless exercise to attempt to conduct a peer review without Engineer A's cooperation
Engineer A Professional Accountability Acceptance
Professional Accountability Acceptance Capability
Engineer A was required to possess and exercise the capability to accept professional accountability for prior design errors by consenting to and cooperating with the peer review of the second tower plans, rather than refusing or obstructing the process.
Engineer A initially refused to consent to the peer review of the second tower plans despite significant errors having been discovered in the first tower plans. The Board found that Engineer A's refusal was ethically impermissible given the prior error discovery.
The Board's conclusion that it would be unethical for Engineer A to fail to cooperate, grounded in the requirements to take responsibility for actions, acknowledge errors, act in client interests, and hold public safety paramount.
Engineers must take responsibility for their actions, must acknowledge their errors, must act in the best interests of their clients, and must at all times hold paramount the health, welfare, and safety of the public.
The known design defects in the first tower simply makes each of those requirements more urgent.
Under the facts, the Board concludes that it would be unethical for Engineer A to fail to cooperate.
Engineer A Safety Accountability Judgment
Safety Accountability Judgment Capability
Engineer A was required to possess the capability to recognize that the discovery of significant errors in the first tower plans created a professional obligation to support independent review of the second tower plans, overriding personal reluctance.
Significant errors were found in Engineer A's first tower plans; Engineer A refused to consent to peer review of the second tower plans despite the professional obligation to do so.
Engineer A's refusal to consent to peer review illustrates the absence or non-exercise of this capability, which was nonetheless required by the professional accountability obligation.
Via class 'Safety Accountability Judgment Capability': Recognizing that prior errors create an accountability obligation and that personal resistance to review is ethically impermissible is a form of ethical perception, specifically the ability to recognize ethically salient features of a situation as described by Anderson et al. 2006 and Berreby et al. 2017. This is a variant focused on accountability contexts, matched at medium confidence.
Engineer A Safety Review Consent Judgment
Engineer A was required to exercise the capability to recognize that the prior discovery of significant errors in the first tower plans created an obligation to consent to independent peer review of the second tower plans as an expression of professional accountability.
Engineer A refused to consent to the peer review of the second tower plans despite significant errors having been found in the first tower plans during construction. The Board found this refusal ethically impermissible.
The Board's finding that Engineer A's refusal to consent was unethical, given that the known design defects made each of the professional accountability requirements more urgent.
Client Instruction Boundary Judgment Capability
Engineer B demonstrated the capability to recognize that the Owner's instruction to conduct a covert review exceeded the limits of client loyalty and conflicted with professional ethics obligations.
Owner instructed Engineer B to conduct the peer review covertly; Engineer B refused on professional ethics grounds.
Declining the Owner's instruction to proceed without notifying Engineer A, and articulating the professional basis for that refusal.
Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know
Via class 'Client Instruction Boundary Judgment Capability': The capability to identify and act on the boundary between client loyalty and professional ethics involves managing conflicting normative requirements, which aligns with Conflict Resolution as defined by Dennis et al. 2016. However, the emphasis here is on judgment about instruction limits rather than mediation between parties, making this a variant at medium confidence.
The Owner instructed Engineer B to review Engineer A's work without Engineer A's knowledge. Engineer B recognized that this instruction exceeded the permissible scope of client authority and objected, illustrating the constraint that client loyalty does not override ethics code requirements.
Engineer B's duty of loyalty to the Owner did not extend to following the Owner's instruction to conduct a covert review, because that instruction required violating professional ethics obligations to Engineer A.
NSPE Code of Ethics; professional ethics principles governing limits of client authority
At the time of receiving the Owner's instruction to conduct a covert review
Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A.
Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know.
Via class 'Client Instruction Override Constraint': This constraint is a specific application of the general Ethical Constraint class. It captures the boundary that client loyalty does not override professional ethics obligations. It is closely related to the existing Non-Deception (Constraint) and Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint) ontology entries but is more precisely characterized as an Ethical Constraint governing the limits of client authority over professional conduct.
Engineer B Confidentiality Scope Reasoning
Confidentiality Scope Reasoning Capability
Engineer B demonstrated the capability to distinguish between the obligation to keep review findings confidential to the Owner and the separate question of whether the review process itself could be conducted covertly.
Engineer B held a confidentiality obligation to Owner regarding review findings but correctly identified this did not extend to covert conduct of the review.
Recognizing that confidentiality of findings did not authorize conducting the review without Engineer A's knowledge.
Engineer B was obligated to protect the contents and findings of the peer review as confidential to the Owner, but this confidentiality obligation did not extend to conducting the review covertly
Via class 'Confidentiality Scope Reasoning Capability': Reasoning about the scope and limits of a confidentiality obligation in order to distinguish permissible from impermissible conduct is a form of ethical reasoning as described by Wallach and Allen 2009 and Belle 2023. This is a variant focused on confidentiality boundary analysis, matched at medium confidence.
Engineering Design Error Recognition Capability
Engineer B possessed the technical capability to conduct an independent peer review of engineering plans and identify significant design errors, which was the basis for the Owner's retention of Engineer B.
Owner retained Engineer B specifically to peer review Engineer A's second tower plans after significant errors were found in the first tower.
Being retained as a qualified peer reviewer capable of independently evaluating Engineer A's second tower plans.
Via class 'Engineering Design Error Recognition Capability': The ability to identify significant design errors through independent review is a domain-specific professional competency fitting Domain Expertise as defined by Hallamaa and Kalliokoski 2022 and Doernberg and Truog 2023. The focus on error recognition in peer review is a variant of the broader class, matched at medium confidence.
Engineer B Ethical Reasoning Review Refusal
Engineer B demonstrated the capability to deliberate on the ethical conflict between client instructions and professional obligations, reaching a justified conclusion that the covert review instruction must be refused.
Engineer B was instructed by Owner to conduct a covert peer review and used ethical reasoning to determine that this instruction could not be followed.
Identifying the ethical impermissibility of covert review and articulating that objection to the Owner before agreeing to proceed only after notification was consented to.
When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Ethical Reasoning'
Engineer B demonstrated the capability to trace the reasoning connecting the refusal to conduct a covert review to the authoritative professional norms requiring notification of the original design engineer.
Engineer B communicated the justification for refusing the covert review instruction to the Owner, resulting in the Owner's reluctant consent to notification.
Articulating to the Owner the professional basis for objecting to the covert review instruction and connecting that objection to applicable professional obligations.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Justification Capability'
The Owner's instruction to conduct a covert review would have required Engineer B to engage in professional conduct that concealed material information from Engineer A. Engineer B's objection reflects the non-deception constraint embedded in professional ethics obligations.
Engineer B was constrained by the non-deception principle from participating in a review process that would involve concealing the review from Engineer A, as such concealment would constitute a form of professional deception toward a fellow engineer.
NSPE Code of Ethics; Non-Deception provisions of professional ethics codes
At the time of receiving and evaluating the Owner's instruction to conduct a covert review
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Non-Deception'
Engineer B Notification Procedural Requirement
The Owner retained Engineer B to conduct a peer review of Engineer A's second tower plans and initially instructed Engineer B to proceed without notifying Engineer A. Engineer B's objection reflects the procedural notification requirement embedded in professional ethics codes.
Engineer B was required by professional procedure to notify Engineer A before commencing the peer review, and this procedural step could not be waived by client instruction.
Via class 'Peer Review Notification Constraint': This constraint maps well to the existing Procedural Constraint class, which covers requirements for following specific processes or protocols. The notification requirement before commencing peer review is a defined procedural step mandated by professional ethics codes, specifically NSPE Code III.7.a. It is a variant of Procedural Constraint with the distinguishing feature of the pre-review notification step.
The Owner agreed to notify Engineer A of the planned peer review after Engineer B declined to conduct a covert review. Engineer A then refused to consent. The Board clarified that consent is not required by Professional Obligation III.7.a., only knowledge of the review.
Peer Review Consent Sufficiency Constraint
Engineer B was required to notify Engineer A before commencing the peer review, but was not required to obtain Engineer A's consent. Once the Owner agreed to notify Engineer A, Engineer B could proceed with the review even if Engineer A refused to consent, though lack of cooperation would limit the review's effectiveness.
NSPE Code Professional Obligation III.7.a, BER analysis in present case
At the commencement of the peer review process
Owner reluctantly agreed to advise Engineer A of the planned peer review
While Professional Obligation III.7.a. does not require the consent of the engineer whose work is being reviewed, it will likely be a fruitless exercise to attempt to conduct a peer review without Engineer A's cooperation
Engineer B possessed knowledge of peer review procedural standards sufficient to recognize that notification of the original design engineer is required before commencing an independent review.
Engineer B was retained by Owner to peer review Engineer A's second tower plans and correctly identified that covert review was procedurally impermissible.
Objecting to the Owner's instruction to conduct the review without notifying Engineer A, and declining to proceed until notification was agreed.
Via class 'Peer Review Protocol Competence': Peer review protocol knowledge is a technical competency specific to professional engineering roles, fitting Professional Competence as defined by Kong et al. 2020 and Stenseke 2024. However, the procedural and ethical dimensions of peer review notification go beyond generic professional competence, warranting a more specific class. Matched as a variant at medium confidence.
Engineer B Peer Review Protocol Competence
Engineer B demonstrated technical and procedural knowledge of the standards governing independent peer review, including the notification requirement under Professional Obligation III.7.a. and the conditions under which a confidentiality agreement is permissible.
Engineer B was retained by Owner to conduct a peer review of Engineer A's second tower plans under a confidentiality agreement. Engineer B correctly identified that the instruction to keep the review secret from Engineer A violated Professional Obligation III.7.a.
Correctly declining the Owner's instruction to conduct a covert review and insisting on notification of Engineer A as a precondition to commencing the review.
Engineer B was completely correct in declining an assignment to conduct a peer review of Engineer A's work subject to an instruction not to disclose the peer review to Engineer A.
Professional Obligation III.7.a. is very clear: Engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.
Engineer B demonstrated the capability to apply prior BER rulings, particularly the principles established in BER Case 96-8 and BER Case 93-3, to determine the correct course of conduct when instructed to conduct a covert peer review.
Engineer B was retained by Owner to conduct a peer review of Engineer A's second tower plans and was instructed not to disclose the review to Engineer A. Engineer B correctly declined this instruction by reference to applicable professional obligations and prior BER rulings.
Declining the Owner's instruction to conduct a covert review and correctly identifying that Professional Obligation III.7.a. required notification of Engineer A before commencing the review.
It is helpful to consider how the BER has addressed peer review issues in the past.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Precedent Retrieval'
Engineer B possessed the capability to recognize the correct sequence for escalating safety concerns discovered during a confidential peer review, including first seeking resolution with the reviewed engineer and then, if unresolved, notifying appropriate authorities.
Engineer B operated under a contractual confidentiality agreement with Owner. The case establishes the sequenced escalation obligation applicable to Engineer B's role as a confidential peer reviewer who might discover safety code violations.
The case analysis draws on BER Case 96-8 to establish that a peer reviewer under a confidentiality agreement must first discuss safety concerns with the reviewed engineer and, if unresolved, must advise that engineer of impending disclosure before reporting to authorities.
Engineer A had an obligation to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B in order to seek clarification and resolution.
if Engineers A and B were unable to successfully resolve Engineer A's concerns, Engineer A had an obligation to first advise Engineer B that Engineer A had an obligation to inform the appropriate authorities, and then to so inform the appropriate authorities.
Engineer B Situational Awareness Covert Review
Engineer B demonstrated situational awareness by perceiving the ethically salient features of the Owner's instruction, specifically that conducting a review without the original engineer's knowledge would violate professional norms.
Engineer B identified the ethical problem with the Owner's covert review instruction at the outset of the engagement.
Immediately recognizing and objecting to the covert review instruction before taking any steps to proceed.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Situational Awareness'
Engineer B's assignment as peer reviewer before Engineer B's review of Engineer A's work (in precedent case context)
Engineer B's assignment as peer reviewer
Engineer B's review of Engineer A's work (in precedent case context)
NSPE Code Professional Obligation III.7.a
National Society of Professional Engineers
NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers, Professional Obligation III.7.a
Professional Obligation III.7.a. is very clear: 'Engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.'
Cited as the controlling provision requiring that an engineer in private practice not review another engineer's work for the same client without the knowledge of that engineer, used to establish that Engineer B was correct to decline the assignment without disclosure to Engineer A.
Via class 'NSPE Code Provision': A numbered provision of the NSPE Code is a citable artifact within the Professional Code category. It is a subtype of Professional Code rather than a genuinely new class.
Provides the primary normative framework for evaluating Engineer B's obligation to notify Engineer A before conducting the peer review, and for assessing Engineer A's refusal to consent to the review.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Professional Code'
discovery of design errors in first tower before owner's decision to obtain peer review for second tower
discovery of design errors in first tower
owner's decision to obtain peer review for second tower
discovery of design errors in first tower during construction of first tower
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2
owner retaining Engineer B for peer review before beginning construction of second tower
owner retaining Engineer B for peer review
After design errors discovered in first tower, before second tower construction begins
After Engineer B objects to the confidential review assignment
Upon Engineer B's retention for peer review
After Owner notifies Engineer A of the planned peer review
Upon receiving assignment instructions from Owner
Following Engineer A's consent refusal and resulting blockage
Engineer A Professional Accountability Refusal
Engineer A's design of second tower plans
Engineer A refused to consent to peer review of the second tower plans despite the prior discovery of significant errors in the first tower plans, failing to accept accountability for work that had already been shown to contain deficiencies.
Professional accountability requires engineers to accept legitimate oversight of their work, especially when prior errors in comparable work provide reasonable grounds for independent review.
Accountability obligation was not satisfied by Engineer A's refusal, which prioritized self-protection over acceptance of responsibility for the quality of professional work product.
Via class 'Professional Accountability': Direct match to the existing Professional Accountability class in the ontology. The case instantiates this principle through Engineer A's refusal to consent to peer review after significant errors were found in the first tower, which is a paradigm case of failing to accept accountability for one's professional work product.
Engineer B's objection to conducting review without notifying Engineer A before owner's reluctant consent to notify Engineer A
Engineer B's objection to conducting review without notifying Engineer A
owner's reluctant consent to notify Engineer A
owner's consent to notify Engineer A before Engineer A's refusal to consent to peer review
Engineer A's refusal to consent to peer review
Peer Review Consent Refusal → Peer Review Blocked
The peer review of Engineer A's second-tower plans was effectively blocked after Engineer A refused
Peer Review Consent Refusal -- Engineer A refuses to consent to and cooperate with the review
Peer Review Blocked -- The review is effectively blocked due to lack of cooperation
If Engineer A had cooperated, the peer review would not have been blocked
Engineer A's refusal to consent and cooperate
Practical reliance on Engineer A's cooperation to conduct the review
Engineer A's refusal to cooperate combined with the impracticality of reviewing without cooperation effectively blocked the review
Notification Consent → Peer Review Consent Refusal
Notification Consent -- Owner notifies Engineer A of the planned peer review
Peer Review Consent Refusal -- Engineer A objects and refuses to consent to the review
Without notification, Engineer A would have had no occasion to refuse consent
Engineer A being notified of the planned peer review
Engineer A's unwillingness to have his work reviewed
Notification of the planned review was enough to prompt Engineer A's objection and refusal to consent
Peer Review Refusal → Notification Consent
Peer Review Refusal -- Engineer B declines the covert assignment
Notification Consent -- Owner reluctantly agrees to notify Engineer A of the planned review
Without Engineer B's refusal, the Owner would not have reluctantly consented to notify Engineer A
Engineer B's refusal to proceed without notification
Owner's desire to still obtain the peer review
Engineer B's ethical refusal compelled the Owner to choose between abandoning the review or agreeing to notify Engineer A
Peer Review Blocked → Second Tower Design Unreviewed
As a consequence of the blocked peer review, the second tower's design by Engineer A remained unrevi
Peer Review Blocked -- The peer review is effectively prevented from going forward
Second Tower Design Unreviewed -- The second tower's design remains unreviewed despite known first-tower defects
If the peer review had proceeded, the second tower's design would have been reviewed
No alternative review mechanism being employed
The peer review being effectively blocked
The blocking of the only planned peer review left the second-tower design unreviewed
Notification Obligation Triggered → Peer Review Refusal
Engineer B was completely correct in declining an assignment to conduct a peer review of Engineer A’s work subject to an instruction not to disclose the peer review to Engineer A.
Notification Obligation Triggered -- III.7.a. obligation to notify Engineer A arises from the review assignment
Peer Review Refusal -- Engineer B declines to proceed under the no-notification condition
If notification had been permitted, Engineer B would not have refused the assignment
Engineer B's commitment to ethical obligations
Owner's instruction not to disclose the review to Engineer A
Professional Obligation III.7.a. requiring the engineer's knowledge
Owner's secrecy instruction combined with III.7.a.'s knowledge requirement was enough for Engineer B to decline
Confidential Review Assignment → Notification Obligation Triggered
Once Engineer B was retained for the peer review, the professional obligation to notify Engineer A
Confidential Review Assignment -- Owner retains Engineer B with instruction not to notify Engineer A
Notification Obligation Triggered -- Professional Obligation III.7.a. requires Engineer A's knowledge of the review
Without the peer review assignment, no notification obligation under III.7.a. would arise
Engineer B retained to review the work of another engineer for the same client
Professional Obligation III.7.a. prohibiting review without the knowledge of such engineer
Retention of an engineer to review a peer's work for the same client triggers the III.7.a. notification obligation
Design Errors Discovered → Confidential Review Assignment
As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A. Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B.
Design Errors Discovered -- Significant design errors found in Engineer A's first-tower plans during construction
Confidential Review Assignment -- Owner retains Engineer B to peer review the second-tower plans, instructing secrecy from Engineer A
Without the discovery of significant design errors, the Owner would not have sought a peer review and retained Engineer B
Discovery of significant design errors in Engineer A's first-tower plans
Existence of a second mirror-image tower yet to be built
Owner's concern about the reliability of Engineer A's design
Discovery of significant design errors combined with an unbuilt mirror-image second tower designed by the same engineer
Engineer A's refusal to consent to peer review of the second tower plans, after significant errors were found in the first tower plans, placed future occupants at risk by obstructing a safety-motivated review process.
Public safety obligation overrides Engineer A's interest in avoiding professional scrutiny, because the risk to future occupants of the second tower is direct and the errors in the first tower are already established.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Public Safety'
several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A. Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower.
Engineer B was retained by the Owner to conduct a peer review under terms that included confidentiality to the Owner. This created a constraint on disclosure of review findings, but the constraint was defeasible in the event that safety-critical findings required escalation beyond the client relationship.
Engineer B's peer review findings were subject to a confidentiality obligation to the Owner, limiting disclosure to third parties, but this confidentiality constraint did not eliminate Engineer B's overriding obligations where safety findings required broader disclosure.
NSPE Code of Ethics; contractual confidentiality terms of the peer review engagement
Throughout and following the peer review engagement
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Confidentiality Constraint'
Engineer B Confidentiality Safety Override
BER Case 96-8 established the procedural sequence for a peer reviewer operating under a confidentiality agreement who discovers potential safety code violations. This precedent is cited in the present case as governing background for the confidential peer review context.
Confidentiality Safety Override Constraint
A peer reviewer bound by a confidentiality agreement who discovers safety code violations must first seek resolution with the reviewed engineer, then advise that engineer of the intent to notify authorities, and then notify appropriate authorities if resolution fails. The confidentiality obligation does not suppress this escalation duty.
Upon discovery of safety code violations during a confidential peer review
Engineer A contractually agreed not to disclose confidential information acquired in the review
Engineer A had an obligation to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B in order to seek clarification and resolution
if Engineers A and B were unable to successfully resolve Engineer A's concerns, Engineer A had an obligation to first advise Engineer B that Engineer A had an obligation to inform the appropriate authorities, and then to so inform the appropriate authorities
Engineer A Professional Integrity Resistance
Engineer A's decision to refuse consent to peer review
Engineer A's refusal to consent to peer review reflected a failure of professional integrity, because it prioritized personal reputational protection over the obligation to support safety-motivated oversight of work that had already been shown to contain significant errors.
Professional integrity requires engineers to act consistently with their professional obligations even when doing so is personally uncomfortable. Refusing peer review to avoid scrutiny of prior errors is inconsistent with the integrity expected of a professional engineer.
Integrity required Engineer A to accept the peer review as a legitimate professional process, and the refusal to do so represented a failure to align conduct with professional obligations.
Owner retained Engineer B to conduct a peer review of Engineer A's second tower plans after significant errors were found in the first tower plans. Owner instructed Engineer B not to disclose the review to Engineer A.
Prior to commencement of the peer review
Via class 'Peer Review Knowledge Obligation': This obligation is a specific mandatory instantiation of the collegial duty toward professional peers, grounded in NSPE III.7.a. The prior extraction captured a related concept as Peer Review Notification Obligation, and this class generalizes that concept into a reusable canonical form tied directly to the code provision.
Retained by Owner to conduct an independent peer review of Engineer A's plans for the second tower. Correctly declined to perform the review without notifying Engineer A, consistent with Professional Obligation III.7.a.
Engineer B was completely correct in declining an assignment to conduct a peer review of Engineer A's work subject to an instruction not to disclose the peer review to Engineer A
Developer of a two-tower site who commissioned Engineer A's original designs and subsequently retained Engineer B for a peer review after discovering significant design errors in the first tower. Initially instructed Engineer B to conduct the review without notifying Engineer A.
decision_authority: Retains and instructs engineers
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Owner Role'
Engineer A Professional Competence Review
Owner's decision to commission peer review
Professional competence includes accepting external verification mechanisms when prior work has been found deficient, because the profession's quality assurance depends on such mechanisms being available and accepted.
The Owner's decision to commission peer review was a reasonable response to demonstrated competence concerns, and Engineer A's refusal to consent conflicted with the accountability dimension of professional competence.
Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower
Via class 'Professional Competence': Direct match to the existing Professional Competence class in the ontology. The case raises this principle through the discovery of significant design errors in the first tower, which motivates the peer review of the second tower as a mechanism for verifying that competence standards are being met.
Engineer B Collegial Notification Refusal
Engineer B correctly declined to conduct the peer review when the owner instructed that Engineer A not be informed of the review, invoking the professional obligation that engineers may not review a colleague's work for the same client without the colleague's knowledge.
Professional Obligation III.7.a operates as a precondition on accepting peer review assignments, not merely a preference, making Engineer B's refusal ethically required rather than merely permissible.
Collegial notification obligation prevailed over client instruction to maintain secrecy, requiring the owner to notify Engineer A before the review could proceed.
Owner retained Engineer B to conduct a peer review of Engineer A's second tower plans after significant errors were found in the first tower. Owner instructed Engineer B to proceed without notifying Engineer A.
Via class 'Peer Review Notification Obligation': This is a specialization of the existing Collegial Obligation class, adding the specific context of peer review notification. The existing class covers duties toward professional peers including respect and fairness, which encompasses the duty to notify a peer before reviewing their work. Confidence is medium because the existing class is more general.
Transparency in peer review requires that the engineer whose work is being reviewed be informed of the review at the outset, so that the process is conducted openly rather than as a covert evaluation.
Transparency toward Engineer A was treated as a precondition of accepting the engagement, not as a matter to be traded off against client preference for confidentiality.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Transparency'
Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A. When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A.
The second tower's design remained in an unverified state, creating ongoing risk that similar or additional errors may be present in plans intended for future construction.
As a consequence of the blocked peer review, the second tower's design by Engineer A remained unreviewed despite known deficiencies in the parallel first-tower plans.
Peer review of second tower plans by Engineer B
No competing principle justified Engineer A's refusal to cooperate; the board found that refusal would be unethical given the convergence of multiple professional obligations all pointing toward cooperation.
The Board concludes that it would be unethical for Engineer A to fail to cooperate.
Engineer A Error Acknowledgment Cooperation
Significant errors were discovered in Engineer A's first tower plans during construction. Engineer A subsequently refused to consent to peer review of the second tower plans, prioritizing personal reputation over professional accountability.
Error Acknowledgment Cooperation Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to acknowledge the errors found in the first tower plans and to cooperate with the peer review of the second tower plans as an expression of professional accountability, rather than refusing cooperation to protect reputational interests.
Upon discovery of errors in the first tower and notification of the planned peer review of the second tower
Via class 'Error Acknowledgment Cooperation Obligation': This obligation is a contextual extension of the Error Acknowledgment class, adding the cooperation-with-corrective-process dimension that the base class does not fully capture. It is a medium-confidence match to the existing class, with the cooperation element as the distinguishing qualifier.
Engineer B Confidential Review Safety Disclosure
BER Case 96-8, cited in the present case, involved a peer reviewer who contractually agreed to confidentiality but discovered potential safety code violations in the reviewed work.
Confidential Review Safety Disclosure Obligation
A peer reviewer operating under a contractual confidentiality agreement who discovers safety code violations must first seek resolution with the reviewed engineer, then notify the reviewed engineer of the intent to report, and then report to appropriate authorities if resolution fails, notwithstanding the confidentiality agreement.
Upon discovery of potential safety code violations during the peer review
Via class 'Confidential Review Safety Disclosure Obligation': This is a specialization of the Reporting Obligation and Safety Obligation classes, distinguished by the condition that a confidentiality agreement is in place. It also maps closely to the Post-Termination Environmental Risk Reporting Obligation in structure, but applies to peer review contexts rather than post-termination scenarios. The safety-overrides-confidentiality logic makes it a distinct reusable type.
Engineer B was retained under terms that included confidentiality regarding the peer review. The Owner sought to use that confidentiality obligation to justify conducting the review covertly, but Engineer B correctly distinguished between protecting review findings and concealing the review's existence.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Confidentiality Obligation'
Confidentiality agreement governing peer review results
As illustrated by BER Case 96-8 cited in this case, a peer reviewer bound by a contractual confidentiality agreement must still disclose safety code violations to appropriate authorities if the original engineer refuses to resolve them, demonstrating that confidentiality obligations do not override public safety duties.
Per BER Case 96-8, when safety violations cannot be resolved between engineers, the reviewer must inform appropriate authorities even under a confidentiality agreement, after first advising the original engineer of that intention.
Engineer A contractually agreed not to disclose confidential information acquired in the review.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Confidentiality Principle'
Engineer A had an obligation to first advise Engineer B that Engineer A had an obligation to inform the appropriate authorities, and then to so inform the appropriate authorities.
Owner Client Loyalty Limits Notification
Owner's instruction to Engineer B regarding confidentiality of review from Engineer A
Engineer B's professional obligation to notify Engineer A prevailed over the owner's instruction, and the owner ultimately complied by agreeing to notify Engineer A.
Owner reluctantly agreed to advise Engineer A of the planned peer review.
Engineer A Professional Accountability Review
Engineer A's response to peer review of second tower plans
Professional accountability in the peer review context means accepting legitimate scrutiny of one's work and engaging constructively with identified errors rather than treating review as an adversarial threat.
Accountability and cooperation obligations were mutually reinforcing, with no countervailing principle justifying refusal.
Engineers must take responsibility for their actions, must acknowledge their errors, must act in the best interests of their clients
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Professional Accountability'
From Engineer B's retention through resolution of the notification and consent dispute
Transforms general confidentiality principles into a structured duty that is defeasible when public safety is at risk, following the BER Case 96-8 pattern.
Engineer B's situation of competing obligations between client instructions and professional courtesy toward Engineer A
Owner consents to notification, partially resolving one tension, though Engineer A's refusal creates a new competing duty
When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A, Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review
Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct a covert review, placing client duty in tension with professional courtesy duty
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Competing Duties State'
Owner sought to impose a confidentiality arrangement on Engineer B that would have prevented notification to Engineer A of the peer review. Engineer B correctly identified that this exceeded the permissible scope of the confidentiality obligation.
Peer Review Confidentiality Scope Obligation
Engineer B's confidentiality obligation to the Owner covered the contents and findings of the peer review but did not extend to concealing the existence of the review from Engineer A, because NSPE III.7.a requires that the reviewed engineer have knowledge of the review.
Frequently that disclosure is accompanied by an agreement that the client will require the peer reviewer to keep the results of the peer review confidential or, at the very least, the original designer will be provided with an opportunity to explain (and defend) the design decisions.
Via class 'Peer Review Confidentiality Scope Obligation': This is a bounded specialization of the Confidentiality Obligation, distinguished by the specific limit that confidentiality in peer review contexts does not override the collegial notification requirement of NSPE III.7.a. It is a defeasible variant with a defined scope boundary.
Engineer B Professional Integrity Insistence
Engineer B's response to Owner's instruction for covert review
Professional integrity requires engineers to act from internalized professional values rather than client pressure. Engineer B's insistence on notification, despite client reluctance, reflects the kind of character-based professional conduct that integrity demands.
Engineer B correctly treated the notification obligation as a matter of professional integrity that could not be waived by client instruction, and the Owner ultimately accepted this position.
Owner's instruction to conduct review without notifying Engineer A
Engineer B correctly declined to follow the Owner's instruction until the Owner consented to notification, treating the notification obligation as a non-negotiable professional duty rather than a matter of client preference.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Loyalty'
Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know. Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A.
From Owner's retention of Engineer B through completion or termination of the peer review engagement
Transforms general professional responsibility principles into a concrete duty to cooperate, especially when known defects elevate public safety concerns.
Engineer B's active professional engagement with Owner to conduct peer review of Engineer A's second tower plans
Completion of peer review or termination of engagement
Owner retains Engineer B to conduct the peer review
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Client Relationship Established'
Original designer of both towers whose plans contained significant errors discovered during construction of the first tower. Refused to consent to peer review of the second tower plans.
plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower
Via class 'Design Engineer': Design Engineer is a specialization of Engineer Role focused on original design authorship. The ontology has Engineer Role as the occupational archetype head, making this a medium-confidence specialization match rather than a new concept.
Significant design errors were discovered in Engineer A's first tower plans during construction. Owner sought a peer review of the second tower plans. Engineer A refused to consent.
Engineer A was obligated to consent to the peer review of the second tower plans given that significant errors had already been discovered in the first tower plans, because public safety required independent verification of the second tower design.
Upon being notified of the Owner's request for peer review of the second tower plans
Via class 'Safety Review Consent Obligation': This is a contextual specialization of the existing Safety Obligation class, applying the paramount public safety duty to the specific situation where a design engineer must cooperate with safety-motivated peer review. The existing Safety Obligation class directly covers the duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
Significant design errors were discovered in Engineer A's first tower plans. The Owner sought a peer review of the second tower plans. Engineer A refused consent after being notified. The known defect history creates a safety constraint that limits the professional legitimacy of Engineer A's refusal.
Engineer A's refusal to consent to the peer review of the second tower plans was constrained by the safety imperative arising from confirmed significant errors in the first tower design, limiting the weight that could be given to Engineer A's objection.
NSPE Code of Ethics; public safety obligations of professional engineers
Following discovery of significant errors in the first tower design and through the peer review engagement
Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower.
Via class 'Safety Review Consent Constraint': This constraint maps to the existing Safety Constraint class, which covers constraints ensuring safety requirements are met. The specific application here is that known prior design defects create a safety imperative that limits the original engineer's ability to block independent review. It is a variant of Safety Constraint with the distinguishing feature of the consent limitation arising from confirmed prior defects.
Scope of confidentiality in peer review engagement
Engineer B's confidentiality obligation to the Owner covered the contents and findings of the peer review but did not extend to concealing the existence of the review from Engineer A, because concealment would violate a separate professional obligation.
The confidentiality obligation was properly limited to the review's findings and did not justify the covert conduct the Owner requested. Engineer B's objection correctly identified this limit.
Owner initially instructed Engineer B to conduct the peer review without notifying Engineer A. After Engineer B declined, Owner reluctantly agreed to advise Engineer A of the planned peer review.
Owner may seek a different, less scrupulous reviewer
Comply with Professional Obligation III.7.a by ensuring Engineer A is notified before any review proceeds
Knowledge of professional ethics obligations
Engineer B declines to proceed with the peer review under the condition that Engineer A not be notified, citing professional obligations that prohibit reviewing another engineer's work for the same client without that engineer's knowledge.
Discovery of significant errors in the first tower plans raised questions about whether Engineer A's competence extended to the second tower design without independent verification.
Engineer A was obligated to acknowledge the limitations raised by the discovery of significant errors in the first tower plans and to support verification that the second tower plans met required competence standards, rather than obstructing review.
Following discovery of significant errors in the first tower plans
Several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A.
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Competence Obligation'
After Owner agreed to notify Engineer A of the peer review, Engineer A refused to consent to or cooperate with the review, despite prior significant errors having been found in the first tower plans.
Upon notification of the peer review and throughout its conduct
Each of those requirements strongly indicates that Engineer A should participate fully and cooperatively in Engineer B's peer review.
From Engineer A's notification of the peer review through the unresolved end of the scenario
Transforms the general principle of professional respect into a concrete tension between respecting a peer's objection and fulfilling a duty to the public and client when prior errors are known.
Engineer A's refusal to consent to the peer review of the second tower plans
Owner instructed Engineer B to review Engineer A's second tower plans without Engineer A's knowledge. Engineer B objected, recognizing that covert review violates professional ethics obligations toward a fellow engineer.
Engineer B was prohibited from conducting the peer review of Engineer A's second tower plans without first notifying Engineer A, regardless of the Owner's instruction to proceed covertly.
NSPE Code of Ethics, Section III.7.a; professional peer review practice standards
Prior to and throughout the peer review engagement
Via class 'Covert Review Prohibition Constraint': This constraint is a specific ethical boundary on permissible review conduct derived from professional ethics codes. It is a variant of the general Ethical Constraint class, with the distinguishing feature being the prohibition on covert peer review. It also has partial overlap with Non-Deception (Constraint) from the ontology, since conducting a covert review involves a form of professional deception toward the reviewed engineer. The best parent match is Ethical Constraint as the broader category, with Non-Deception (Constraint) as a closely related provision.
Owner instructed Engineer B to review Engineer A's second tower plans without informing Engineer A, in the context of a two-tower development where significant errors had been found in the first tower.
Upon receipt of the Owner's instruction to conduct a covert review
Via class 'Covert Review Refusal Obligation': This obligation is a specific instantiation of the broader Ethical Obligation class, operationalizing the duty to refuse client instructions that violate professional transparency and collegial norms. The existing Ethical Obligation class covers duties arising from professional codes and moral reasoning, which encompasses this refusal duty. Medium confidence because the existing class is more general.
Retained by Owner to conduct an independent peer review of Engineer A's plans for the second tower. Objected to performing the review without notifying Engineer A, asserting a professional obligation to advise the reviewed engineer.
Engineer B's professional duty to notify Engineer A became operative, constraining Engineer B from conducting the review without first making that notification.
Once Engineer B was retained for the peer review, the professional obligation to notify Engineer A automatically came into force, preceding any further action by Engineer B.
From Owner's initial instruction to Engineer B through Owner's reluctant consent to notify Engineer A
Transforms general professional courtesy and fairness principles into a concrete notification obligation before accepting or conducting a peer review engagement.
Owner's instruction to Engineer B regarding peer review of Engineer A's work
Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A
Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without informing Engineer A
Present Case Peer Review Consent Refused
From Owner's notification of Engineer A through Engineer A's decision to cooperate or Owner's decision to proceed without Engineer A
Engineer A's refusal to consent to and cooperate with Engineer B's peer review in the present case
Engineer A agrees to cooperate, or Owner proceeds without Engineer A
From the point at which design defects in the first tower are identified through correction or replacement of the defective design
Transforms baseline professional responsibility into urgent duties of transparency, cooperation, and correction when prior work is known to be defective.
Confirmed defects in Engineer A's design of the first tower
Correction of defects to applicable standards or replacement of the design
The known design defects in the first tower simply makes each of those requirements more urgent
Identification and confirmation of design defects in the first tower
From discovery of errors during first tower construction onward, persisting into second tower planning
Significant design errors discovered in Engineer A's plans and design for the first tower
Successful peer review and correction of second tower plans, or not resolved in the text
Several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A
Discovery of significant design errors in Engineer A's plans during first tower construction
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Risk State'
From identification of design defects through correction or replacement of the defective design
Risk to public health, safety, and welfare arising from known design defects in Engineer A's first tower design
Defects corrected and design brought into compliance with applicable safety standards
Engineers must at all times hold paramount the health, welfare, and safety of the public
Confirmation of design defects in the first tower with potential public safety implications
Individual typed as existing ontology class 'Public Safety at Risk'
Owner as client instructed Engineer B to perform a peer review covertly, which would have required Engineer B to act against professional transparency and collegial norms.
Engineer B was obligated to decline the Owner's instruction to conduct a covert review, recognizing that the duty of loyalty to the Owner did not extend to complying with a directive that required violating professional ethics obligations toward Engineer A.
Via class 'Client Instruction Limits Obligation': This obligation is the defeasible counterpart to the Faithful Agent Obligation. The existing Faithful Agent Obligation is explicitly noted as defeasible under states that confirm public-safety risk or ethics violations, and this class captures the duty that defeats it when client instructions cross ethical lines. Medium confidence because the existing class addresses the same role-relationship from the complementary direction.
Engineer A may object or refuse to cooperate
Satisfy Engineer B's professional objection so the peer review can proceed
Owner reluctantly agrees to notify Engineer A that a peer review of the second tower plans will be conducted by Engineer B, after Engineer B objects to proceeding without disclosure.
Engineer A Peer Review Cooperation Refused
From the point at which Engineer A is notified of the peer review and declines to cooperate through the Board's conclusion that non-cooperation is unethical
Engineer A's posture toward Engineer B's peer review of Engineer A's design work
Engineer A's full and cooperative participation in the peer review, or Owner's decision to proceed without Engineer A
If Engineer A refused to consent and cooperate, Owner would be then face with three options
the Board concludes that it would be unethical for Engineer A to fail to cooperate
Owner notifies Engineer A of the planned peer review and Engineer A refuses to consent and cooperate
Decision whether to cooperate with Engineer B's peer review
Engineer A's obligation to hold paramount the health, welfare, and safety of the public was one of the converging reasons the board found that refusal to cooperate with the peer review would be unethical, given the known design defects in the first tower.
Public safety paramountcy in this context operates not only as a disclosure duty but as an affirmative duty to facilitate review processes that protect the public from known engineering errors.
Public safety paramountcy reinforced rather than conflicted with the cooperation obligation, making the ethical conclusion unambiguous.
must at all times hold paramount the health, welfare, and safety of the public
From Owner's initial instruction to Engineer B through Owner's reluctant agreement to notify Engineer A
Owner's initial instruction to Engineer B to review Engineer A's work without Engineer A's knowledge
Owner's reluctant consent to advise Engineer A of the planned peer review
Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct a peer review without disclosing it to Engineer A
Engineer A's plans are now known to contain significant errors, putting the quality of related work on the second tower in question.
Significant design errors were found in Engineer A's plans during construction of the first tower, revealing deficiencies in the original engineering work.
Engineer A may lose trust in Owner if discovered
Engineer B may object on professional grounds
Obtain independent assessment of Engineer A's second tower plans without alerting Engineer A, likely to avoid interference or defensiveness from Engineer A
Owner retains Engineer B to conduct a peer review of Engineer A's plans for the second tower, with explicit instructions to keep the review secret from Engineer A.
Engineer A refused to consent to and cooperate with Engineer B's peer review of the second tower plans after significant design errors had been discovered in Engineer A's first tower plans. The Board concluded that such refusal was unethical.
Engineer A was ethically required to cooperate fully with Engineer B's peer review of the second tower plans. Refusal to cooperate was unethical given the known design defects in the first tower, the public safety implications, and the professional duty to acknowledge errors and act in client and public interests.
NSPE Code of Ethics, BER analysis in present case
During the peer review of the second tower plans
Engineers must take responsibility for their actions, must acknowledge their errors, must act in the best interests of their clients, and must at all times hold paramount the health, welfare, and safety of the public
Via class 'Peer Review Cooperation Constraint': This is a variant of the general Ethical Constraint class. It is more specific than the base class but does not map precisely to any of the already-extracted constraint classes, which address notification, covert review prohibition, client instruction override, safety review consent, and confidential review scope. The cooperation duty under known-defect conditions is a distinct ethical boundary not yet captured.
Engineer A Professional Accountability Cooperation
Significant errors were found in Engineer A's first tower plans. Owner arranged a peer review of the second tower plans. Engineer A refused to consent, prioritizing personal reputational interests over professional accountability.
Professional Accountability Cooperation Obligation
Engineer A was obligated to cooperate with the peer review process as an expression of professional accountability, given that prior significant errors in related work had been established and the review was a legitimate quality assurance measure.
Upon discovery of errors in the first tower and initiation of the peer review process for the second tower
Engineer A's professional reputation may suffer further
Owner may terminate Engineer A's engagement
Public safety risk in second tower may go unaddressed
Block or obstruct the peer review, likely to avoid scrutiny of design work given known errors already discovered in the first tower
Obligation to Act in Client Best Interests
Obligation to Hold Paramount Public Health Safety and Welfare
Obligation to Take Responsibility for Professional Actions
After being notified of the planned peer review, Engineer A refuses to consent to Engineer B reviewing the second tower plans, effectively withholding cooperation from the process.
The peer review process is halted and cannot proceed without resolution of the consent dispute, leaving the second tower's design unreviewed.
The peer review of Engineer A's second-tower plans was effectively blocked after Engineer A refused to consent, leaving the review unable to proceed despite the owner's agreement to notify Engineer A.