ProEthica Case 15 Ontology
type: Ontology
created: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.946298
imports: cases
imports: intermediate

93-3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.213452
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

BER-Case-18-10
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 18-10
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:09:12.553574+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:09:12.553574+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In BER Case 18-10, Engineer A was the lead engineer on an independent external review of an agency-prepared project... the Board concluded that, so long as the agency approves and the work complies with applicable state laws and regulations regarding conflicts of interest, it would not be unethical for Engineer A's firm to participate in a design-build joint venture submitting a proposal for the project.
textreferences: In BER Case 18-10, Engineer A was the lead engineer on an independent external review of an agency-prepared project... the Board concluded that, so long as the agency approves and the work complies with applicable state laws and regulations regarding conflicts of interest, it would not be unethical for Engineer A's firm to participate in a design-build joint venture submitting a proposal for the project.
usedby: BER in the present case discussion to contextualize peer review ethics
usedincontext: Referenced as precedent addressing peer review issues, specifically whether an engineer who conducted an independent external review may later participate in a design-build joint venture for the same project, concluding it is not unethical provided agency approval and compliance with conflict-of-interest laws
version: 2018
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.949038
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

BER-Case-93-3
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 93-3
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:09:12.553574+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:09:12.553574+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: [93-3 discussed a situation in which the Owner refused to advise the engineer of the planned peer review.]
textreferences: [93-3 discussed a situation in which the Owner refused to advise the engineer of the planned peer review.]
usedby: BER in the present case discussion to distinguish the notification obligation scenario
usedincontext: Referenced parenthetically as a prior case addressing the situation where an Owner refused to advise the engineer of a planned peer review, providing contrast to the present case where Owner reluctantly agreed to notify Engineer A
version: 1993
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.949280
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

BER-Case-96-8
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Case 96-8
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:09:12.553574+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:09:12.553574+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: In BER Case 96-8, Engineer A was a peer reviewer serving as part of an organized peer-review program... The BER concluded that Engineer A had an obligation to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B in order to seek clarification and resolution... 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.
textreferences: In BER Case 96-8, Engineer A was a peer reviewer serving as part of an organized peer-review program... The BER concluded that Engineer A had an obligation to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B in order to seek clarification and resolution... 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.
usedby: BER in the present case discussion to establish the hierarchy of obligations when peer review uncovers public safety concerns
usedincontext: Referenced as precedent establishing that a peer reviewer who discovers potential safety code violations has an obligation to discuss concerns with the reviewed engineer, seek resolution, and if unresolved, notify appropriate authorities — even when bound by a confidentiality agreement
version: 1996
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.949160
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

BER Case 18-10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.213392
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

BER Case 18-10 Prior Review Participation Conflict
type: InsiderKnowledgeAdvantageState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From invitation to participate in design-build RFP through agency approval determination and legal compliance assessment
affectedparties: Client agency
affectedparties: Competing firms in RFP process
affectedparties: Engineer A's firm
concept category: State
confidence: 0.78
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:09:58.790115+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:09:58.790115+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Engineer A was the lead engineer on an independent external review of an agency-prepared project.
stateclass: Insider Knowledge Advantage State
subject: Engineer A's firm's position having conducted prior independent review of project before being invited to join design-build RFP joint venture
terminatedby: Agency approval granted and legal compliance confirmed, or firm declines participation
textreferences: About a year later, Engineer A's firm is invited to be part of a joint venture responding to a design-build RFP for the project.
textreferences: Engineer A was the lead engineer on an independent external review of an agency-prepared project.
textreferences: so long as the agency approves and the work complies with applicable state laws and regulations regarding conflicts of interest, it would not be unethical for Engineer A's firm to participate
triggeringevent: Engineer A's firm invited to join design-build joint venture approximately one year after conducting independent external review of same project
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.951501
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

BER Case 96-8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.213421
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

BER Case 96-8 Safety Violation Discovery During Confidential Review
type: PeerReviewSafetyViolationDiscoveryState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's identification of potential violations through resolution or reporting to authorities
affectedparties: Engineer A (reviewer)
affectedparties: Engineer B (reviewed)
affectedparties: Public affected by potentially non-compliant design
concept category: State
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:09:58.790115+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:09:58.790115+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A determined that Engineer B's work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements, placing the public health, safety, and welfare at risk.
stateclass: Peer Review Safety Violation Discovery State
subject: Engineer A's discovery of potential safety code violations in Engineer B's work during confidential peer review program
terminatedby: Joint resolution, Engineer B's correction of violations, or Engineer A's report to appropriate authorities
textreferences: Engineer A determined that Engineer B's work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements, placing the public health, safety, and welfare at risk.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A had an obligation to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B in order to seek clarification and resolution.
triggeringevent: Engineer A's determination during peer review that Engineer B's work may violate state and local safety code requirements
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.951048
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

BER_Case_Precedents_Peer_Review
type: BERCasePrecedent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.8
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Board of Ethical Review Cases on Peer Review and Engineer Notification
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:08:28.771566+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:08:28.771566+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: BER Case Precedent
sourcetext: Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A
textreferences: Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review
textreferences: Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A
usedby: Ethical analysis of Engineer B's and Engineer A's conduct
usedincontext: Provides analogical reasoning patterns from prior BER decisions addressing the ethics of peer review engagements, notification obligations, and the rights of engineers whose work is under review
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.947393
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Case 15 Timeline
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.963064
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer A Creates Flawed Plan
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.216900
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer A Refuses Peer Review
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.217021
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

CausalLink_Engineer B Refuses Covert Revi
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.216963
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

CausalLink_Owner Consents to Notifying En
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.216992
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

CausalLink_Owner Retains Engineer B Cover
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.216933
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

CausalLink_Owner Selects Post-Refusal Str
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.217049
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Client Loyalty Invoked As Basis for Engineer A Peer Review Cooperation
type: ClientLoyalty
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's obligation to cooperate with Owner-commissioned peer review
balancingwith: Reputational self-interest of Engineer A
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's obligation to act in the best interests of the Owner client requires cooperation with the peer review that the Owner has commissioned to protect the Owner's interests in the second tower project, particularly given that the Owner discovered design errors in the first tower
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:15:28.047091+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:15:28.047091+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Client loyalty includes supporting the client's legitimate quality assurance decisions, including peer review of the engineer's own work, rather than obstructing processes the client has determined are necessary to protect its interests
invokedby: Engineer A Original Design Engineer Subject to Peer Review
principleclass: Client Loyalty
sourcetext: Engineers must take responsibility for their actions, must acknowledge their errors, must act in the best interests of their clients
tensionresolution: Client loyalty requires subordinating Engineer A's reputational self-interest to the Owner's legitimate interest in obtaining an effective peer review
textreferences: Owner reluctantly agreed to advise Engineer A of the planned peer review.
textreferences: must act in the best interests of their clients
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.956605
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Client Relationship Engineer A Second Tower
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From original engagement through the peer review dispute
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Owner
concept category: State
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:08:47.187342+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:08:47.187342+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Owner is developing a site with two mirror-image towers to be built two years apart
stateclass: Client Relationship Established
subject: Engineer A's ongoing professional relationship with Owner for second tower plans
terminatedby: Not terminated in the presented facts
textreferences: Owner is developing a site with two mirror-image towers to be built two years apart
textreferences: Several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A
triggeringevent: Owner's original retention of Engineer A for both towers
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.948615
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Client Relationship Engineer B Peer Review
type: ClientRelationshipEstablished
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Owner's retention of Engineer B through completion of peer review
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Owner
concept category: State
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:08:47.187342+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:08:47.187342+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B
stateclass: Client Relationship Established
subject: Engineer B's professional relationship with Owner for peer review services
terminatedby: Completion of peer review engagement
textreferences: Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B
triggeringevent: Owner's retention of Engineer B to conduct peer review of second tower plans
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.948774
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Conclusion_1
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
conclusion number: 1
conclusion text: Engineer B is ethically required to make certain that Engineer A is advised of the planned peer review.
conclusion type: board_explicit
extraction reasoning: Parsed from imported case text (no LLM)
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.214645
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Conclusion_101
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 1
answers question2: 101
answers question3: 201
answers question4: 301
cited provision1: III.7.a.
cited provision2: I.6.
conclusion number: 101
conclusion text: Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer B is ethically required to ensure Engineer A is advised of the planned peer review, Engineer B's obligation does not merely require passive reliance on the Owner's promise to notify. Engineer B bears an independent, affirmative duty to verify that notification has actually occurred before commencing any review activity. If the Owner fails to follow through on the agreed notification, Engineer B's continued participation in the review would itself constitute a violation of the peer review notification norm embedded in Code provision III.7.a. The ethical obligation is not discharged by the Owner's mere consent to notify; it is discharged only when Engineer B has reasonable confirmation that Engineer A has in fact been informed. This means Engineer B must treat notification as a precondition to engagement, not merely a procedural courtesy to be delegated entirely to the Owner.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.214750
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Conclusion_102
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 301
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: I.6.
cited provision3: III.7.a.
cited provision4: III.1.f.
conclusion number: 102
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer B must ensure notification implicitly resolves the tension between the Faithful Agent Obligation and the Peer Review Notification Obligation in favor of the latter, but the Board did not articulate the limiting principle. The correct limiting principle is that the Faithful Agent Obligation operates only within ethical limits, as the Code itself specifies in provision I.4. When an Owner's instruction — here, to conduct a covert review — would require Engineer B to violate a professional norm protecting a third-party engineer's dignity and procedural rights under III.7.a. and III.1.f., that instruction falls outside the scope of lawful and ethical client service. Engineer B's refusal of the covert instruction was therefore not a breach of client loyalty but rather the precise conduct that the Code's faithful agent standard demands: serving the client's legitimate interests while refusing to become an instrument of professionally impermissible conduct. The Board should have made this limiting principle explicit to prevent future misreading of the faithful agent duty as an override of peer review procedural norms.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.214839
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Conclusion_103
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 103
answers question3: 203
answers question4: 304
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.1.a.
cited provision3: III.7.a.
conclusion number: 103
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer A may not ethically object to the peer review, while sound, rests on a public safety predicate — the known design errors in the first tower — that the Board did not fully develop into an independent affirmative obligation. Engineer A's prior acknowledgment duty under Code provision III.1.a., which requires engineers to admit their errors and not distort or alter the facts, independently compels Engineer A not merely to tolerate the peer review but to actively facilitate it. An engineer who has produced significant design errors and who then refuses to cooperate with a review designed to prevent replication of those errors in a second structure is not simply exercising a procedural objection; that engineer is actively impeding the correction of a known professional failure in a context where public safety is at stake. This conduct simultaneously violates III.1.a. (error acknowledgment), the Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review principle, and the paramount public welfare obligation of Code provision I.1. The Board's answer to Q2 should therefore have been grounded not only in the Owner's right to commission the review but in Engineer A's independent ethical duty to cooperate arising from the prior error.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.214929
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Conclusion_104
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 403
cited provision1: III.7.a.
cited provision2: III.1.f.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 104
conclusion text: The Board did not address the perverse incentive created by the Owner's option to terminate Engineer A as an alternative to notification. If termination is treated as an ethically equivalent substitute for notification — effectively allowing the Owner to circumvent the peer review notification norm by simply removing the engineer whose work is being reviewed — the protective purpose of Code provision III.7.a. is gutted. An engineer cannot be notified of a review of their work if they have already been removed from the project. The Board should have clarified that termination used as a mechanism to avoid notification, rather than as a genuine exercise of the Owner's right to select engineers, would itself constitute a procedurally impermissible workaround. Engineer B, upon learning that the Owner was considering termination specifically to avoid the notification obligation, would have an independent duty to decline the engagement under those circumstances, because proceeding would make Engineer B complicit in the circumvention of the very norm Engineer B had previously insisted upon.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.215010
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Conclusion_105
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.c.
cited provision3: III.4.
cited provision4: I.6.
conclusion number: 105
conclusion text: The Board's analysis implicitly assumed that the peer review process, once properly initiated with notification, is self-contained and its findings are for the Owner's use alone. However, if Engineer B's peer review of the second tower plans reveals that the same categories of significant design errors present in the first tower have been replicated, Engineer B faces an independent obligation that the Board did not address: the duty to consider escalation to public authorities if the Owner declines to act on the findings. Code provision I.1. places public safety paramount, and Code provision II.1.c. and III.4. protect client confidentiality only to the extent that disclosure is not required to protect the public. A peer review that uncovers structural defects posing genuine public safety risks cannot ethically remain confidential if the Owner suppresses the findings. Engineer B must therefore understand, at the outset of the engagement, that the peer review confidentiality framework is bounded by the same public safety override that the Board recognized in BER Case 96-8, and that Engineer B's obligations do not terminate with delivery of the report to the Owner.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.215093
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Conclusion_106
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 2
answers question2: 402
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.1.a.
cited provision3: III.7.a.
cited provision4: III.1.f.
conclusion number: 106
conclusion text: The Board's conclusion that Engineer A may not ethically object to the peer review would have been materially more difficult to sustain absent the public safety predicate established by the known design errors in the first tower. In a scenario where no prior errors had been discovered, Engineer A's refusal to consent would have presented a genuine tension between the Owner's right to commission independent review and Engineer A's professional dignity interest in not being subjected to unsolicited scrutiny of competent work. The existence of prior significant design errors is therefore not merely a factual background detail but the essential ethical predicate that converts Engineer A's refusal from a potentially defensible professional position into an ethically impermissible obstruction. This distinction matters for future cases: the Board's reasoning should not be read as establishing that engineers may never object to peer review of their work, but rather that engineers who have produced known errors in related prior work on the same project have forfeited the standing to obstruct review of subsequent work on that project, because the public safety interest has been concretely activated by their own prior professional failure.
conclusion type: analytical_extension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.215217
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Conclusion_201
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 101
answers question2: 301
cited provision1: III.7.a.
cited provision2: I.6.
conclusion number: 201
conclusion text: In response to Q101: If the Owner had never voluntarily agreed to notify Engineer A, Engineer B would have faced an independent, unconditional obligation to refuse the covert engagement entirely rather than simply object and await resolution. The notification requirement under Code provision III.7.a is not a procedural preference that can be waived by client instruction — it is a structural precondition to the legitimacy of the peer review itself. Engineer B's acceptance of a covert assignment, even provisionally, would have constituted an ethical violation at the moment of acceptance, not merely at the moment of conducting the review. The ethical violation inheres in agreeing to participate in a process designed to circumvent a colleague's right to notice, regardless of whether the review is ultimately conducted. Engineer B's proper course, absent Owner agreement to notify, would have been to decline the engagement entirely and explain that the engagement could only proceed on terms consistent with professional obligations. The fact that the Owner did agree to notify does not retroactively validate Engineer B's initial acceptance under covert terms; it merely cures the procedural defect before the violation was consummated.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.215303
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Conclusion_202
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 102
answers question2: 403
cited provision1: III.7.a.
cited provision2: III.1.f.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 202
conclusion text: In response to Q102: The Owner's legal ability to terminate Engineer A as a workaround to the notification requirement creates a genuine perverse incentive that the Board's conclusion, while correct on its face, fails to fully address. If notification is required but termination is a permissible substitute, then the protective norm is effectively optional for any Owner willing to pay the transactional cost of dismissal. The Board should have addressed whether termination-as-substitution is ethically equivalent to notification. It is not. Termination severs the professional relationship and eliminates Engineer A's opportunity to respond, correct, or participate — outcomes that notification is specifically designed to preserve. A termination motivated primarily by the desire to avoid notification obligations would itself constitute an ethically problematic use of the Owner's contractual power, potentially implicating the Owner's own duty of procedural fairness toward Engineer A. Engineer B, upon learning that termination was being contemplated as a substitute for notification, would have an independent obligation to flag this concern to the Owner, since facilitating a termination-as-evasion strategy would undermine the very professional norm Engineer B is obligated to uphold.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.215386
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Conclusion_203
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 103
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: III.1.a.
cited provision2: I.1.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 203
conclusion text: In response to Q103: Engineer A bears affirmative, independent disclosure obligations regarding the known design errors in the first tower that exist entirely apart from and prior to any peer review being commissioned. Code provision III.1.a requires engineers to acknowledge their errors and not distort or alter the facts. This obligation is self-executing — it is triggered by Engineer A's own knowledge of the errors, not by the initiation of external review. Engineer A's duty to disclose the first-tower errors to the Owner arose at the moment Engineer A became aware of those errors, and that duty was not contingent on whether a peer review was ever commissioned, whether the Owner asked, or whether the errors were discovered by a third party. The failure to proactively disclose known design errors to the Owner while simultaneously designing the second tower compounds the ethical violation: Engineer A was not merely passively concealing past errors but was actively continuing professional work for the same client on a related structure while withholding material safety-relevant information. This sequence of conduct implicates not only III.1.a but also the paramount public safety obligation under I.1, since the Owner's ability to make informed decisions about the second tower was directly impaired by Engineer A's non-disclosure.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.215467
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Conclusion_204
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 104
answers question2: 204
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.4.
cited provision3: II.1.c.
cited provision4: III.4.
cited provision5: I.6.
conclusion number: 204
conclusion text: In response to Q104: Engineer B has an independent obligation to report known design defects in Engineer A's first tower work to public authorities if the Owner declines to act on them, regardless of the outcome of the peer review process. This obligation derives from the paramount public safety duty under I.1, which supersedes both the confidentiality obligations under II.1.c and III.4 and the faithful agent obligation under I.4. The peer review process is a mechanism for identifying and correcting defects — it is not a substitute for public safety reporting when the Owner fails to act. If Engineer B, through the peer review, confirms significant structural defects in the first tower and the Owner declines to remediate or report, Engineer B's obligation to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public independently compels escalation to relevant authorities. The confidentiality protections that ordinarily shield client information do not extend to concealing known public safety hazards. The Board's silence on this point is a significant gap: the peer review framework cannot function as a mechanism that simultaneously uncovers safety defects and then seals them within a confidential client relationship. Engineer B must understand from the outset that accepting this engagement carries the potential obligation to escalate findings over the Owner's objection if public safety demands it.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.215595
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Conclusion_205
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 301
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: III.7.a.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 205
conclusion text: In response to Q201: The tension between Engineer B's faithful agent obligation under I.4 and the peer review notification obligation under III.7.a is resolved by the Code's own internal hierarchy. The faithful agent duty is explicitly bounded by ethical limits — I.4 requires Engineer B to act as a faithful agent 'within ethical limits,' meaning that client instructions that require Engineer B to violate professional obligations are not instructions Engineer B is ethically permitted to follow. The Owner's instruction to conduct a covert review without notifying Engineer A is precisely the kind of client instruction that falls outside the scope of the faithful agent duty. Engineer B's resolution of this tension — refusing the covert instruction and conditioning engagement on notification — is not a breach of client loyalty but rather the correct application of the Code's hierarchy: faithful agency operates within, not above, professional ethical obligations. Engineer B's refusal to comply with the covert instruction is therefore not a tension requiring compromise but a straightforward application of the principle that client loyalty cannot be used to override professional norms that protect third parties.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.215673
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Conclusion_206
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
cited provision1: II.1.c.
cited provision2: III.4.
cited provision3: I.1.
cited provision4: III.7.a.
conclusion number: 206
conclusion text: In response to Q202: The confidentiality principle does not categorically conflict with the public welfare paramount principle in the peer review context — rather, the peer review framework itself is the mechanism through which these principles are reconciled. Confidentiality under II.1.c and III.4 protects client information from unauthorized third-party disclosure; it does not protect an engineer's design work from legitimate review commissioned by the client who owns that work. The Owner, as the commissioning party for both the original design and the peer review, has not violated Engineer A's confidentiality by authorizing Engineer B to review Engineer A's plans — the Owner is the client whose consent is required, and the Owner has given that consent. Engineer A's confidentiality interest in the design work runs to the Owner, not against the Owner. The public safety predicate — confirmed design errors in the first tower creating risk of replication in the second — does not need to override confidentiality because confidentiality is not properly invoked as a barrier to Owner-authorized peer review. The public welfare paramount principle operates independently to ensure that even if confidentiality were somehow implicated, it would yield to the safety imperative.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.215755
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Conclusion_207
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
cited provision1: III.1.f.
cited provision2: III.7.a.
cited provision3: I.1.
cited provision4: I.6.
conclusion number: 207
conclusion text: In response to Q203: The professional dignity principle protecting Engineer A from covert or disrespectful review under III.1.f does not survive intact once the notification requirement has been satisfied. Engineer A's dignity interest is protected by the notification obligation — the requirement that Engineer A be informed of the review before it proceeds. Once notification has occurred, Engineer A's dignity-based objection to the manner of the review is substantially addressed. The existence of prior design errors does not extinguish Engineer A's dignity interests entirely, but it does significantly constrain the weight those interests can carry against the public safety imperative. An engineer who has produced work containing significant design errors and who is now designing a related structure for the same client has a diminished claim to object to professional scrutiny of that subsequent work on dignity grounds. The dignity principle protects engineers from arbitrary, malicious, or procedurally unfair review — it does not protect engineers from legitimate, Owner-authorized, properly notified review of work that has already demonstrated quality concerns. Engineer A's refusal to consent, framed as a dignity objection, is therefore not ethically sustainable under the Code.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.215833
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Conclusion_208
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 204
cited provision1: III.1.a.
cited provision2: I.4.
cited provision3: I.1.
cited provision4: I.6.
conclusion number: 208
conclusion text: In response to Q204: The conflict between Engineer A's error acknowledgment and corrective disclosure obligation under III.1.a and the client loyalty principle under I.4 is resolved by the same hierarchical logic that resolves Engineer B's faithful agent tension. Client loyalty, like faithful agency, operates within ethical limits. III.1.a imposes an unconditional obligation to acknowledge errors — the provision contains no exception for situations where disclosure might damage the client relationship or expose the engineer to professional consequences. Engineer A's obligation to acknowledge the first-tower design errors to the Owner arose independently of the peer review and was not contingent on the Owner's demand for disclosure. The client loyalty principle cannot be invoked to justify concealing material design errors from the very client whose project is affected by those errors, because doing so would harm rather than serve the client's genuine interests. The Board's failure to address this tension explicitly leaves open the question of whether Engineer A's non-disclosure prior to the peer review was itself an independent ethical violation — and the answer, under a straightforward reading of III.1.a, is that it was.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.215910
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Conclusion_209
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 301
answers question2: 201
cited provision1: III.7.a.
cited provision2: III.1.f.
cited provision3: I.1.
cited provision4: I.6.
conclusion number: 209
conclusion text: In response to Q301: From a deontological perspective, Engineer B's duty to notify Engineer A of the peer review is unconditional and derives from both professional courtesy norms and public safety obligations, though the two grounds operate differently. The professional courtesy ground — rooted in III.7.a and III.1.f — establishes notification as a categorical rule of professional conduct that applies regardless of consequences: engineers do not conduct covert reviews of colleagues' work because doing so violates the dignity and procedural rights of the reviewed engineer as a matter of principle. The public safety ground — rooted in I.1 — establishes notification as instrumentally necessary to ensure that the peer review process functions legitimately and that its findings can be acted upon without procedural taint. A deontological analysis does not require Engineer B to calculate whether covert review would produce better outcomes; it requires Engineer B to recognize that covert review is categorically impermissible as a mode of professional conduct. The Owner's instruction to conduct a covert review is therefore not merely inadvisable — it is a request that Engineer B act in a manner inconsistent with categorical professional duties, and Engineer B's refusal is not a matter of prudential judgment but of ethical obligation.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.216011
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Conclusion_210
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 302
answers question2: 2
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.7.a.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 210
conclusion text: In response to Q302: From a consequentialist perspective, the demonstrated risk of replicating known design errors in the second tower provides a compelling and sufficient justification for proceeding with peer review over Engineer A's refusal to consent. The consequentialist calculus here is not close: the potential harm from unchecked structural defects in a second tower — which could include structural failure, injury, or death — vastly outweighs the harm to Engineer A from undergoing a professionally conducted, properly notified peer review. The harm of coerced professional review, to the extent it constitutes harm at all, is primarily reputational and professional — it is the discomfort of having one's work scrutinized after a prior error has been confirmed. This harm is not trivial, but it is categorically different in kind and magnitude from the public safety risk posed by potentially defective structural design. A consequentialist analysis would also note that the peer review process, properly conducted with confidentiality protections, minimizes the reputational harm to Engineer A while maximizing the safety benefit to the public. The Board's implicit conclusion that Engineer A may not ethically object is therefore well-supported on consequentialist grounds, and the public safety predicate is not merely a rhetorical device but the central consequentialist justification for overriding Engineer A's refusal.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.216087
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Conclusion_211
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 303
cited provision1: I.6.
cited provision2: III.7.a.
cited provision3: I.4.
cited provision4: III.1.f.
conclusion number: 211
conclusion text: In response to Q303: From a virtue ethics standpoint, Engineer B's refusal to comply with the Owner's covert review instruction and insistence on notification as a precondition to engagement exemplifies the kind of professional integrity and collegial respect that the NSPE Code envisions. The virtuous engineer is not merely one who follows rules when convenient but one who maintains professional standards even when client pressure creates incentives to deviate. Engineer B's conduct — identifying the ethical problem with the covert instruction, refusing to proceed on those terms, and conditioning continued engagement on the Owner's agreement to notify Engineer A — demonstrates practical wisdom, professional courage, and genuine respect for a colleague's procedural rights. This conduct is particularly significant because Engineer B had a financial and professional interest in retaining the engagement: refusing the Owner's instruction carried the risk of losing the assignment entirely. The willingness to accept that risk in order to maintain professional standards is precisely the kind of honorable conduct that I.6 envisions when it requires engineers to 'conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully.' Engineer B's refusal is not merely procedurally correct — it is a model of professional virtue in a situation where the easier path was available.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.216162
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Conclusion_212
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 304
answers question2: 2
cited provision1: III.1.a.
cited provision2: III.7.a.
cited provision3: I.1.
cited provision4: I.6.
conclusion number: 212
conclusion text: In response to Q304: From a deontological perspective, Engineer A's prior acknowledgment obligation under III.1.a independently compels cooperation with the peer review, such that refusal constitutes a categorical ethical violation irrespective of outcomes. The reasoning proceeds as follows: Engineer A has already produced work containing significant design errors. III.1.a requires Engineer A to acknowledge those errors. Cooperation with a legitimately commissioned peer review of related subsequent work is the concrete professional mechanism through which that acknowledgment obligation is discharged in the context of ongoing design work for the same client. Refusing to cooperate with the peer review is therefore not merely a separate ethical violation — it is a continuation and compounding of the original failure to acknowledge errors, now extended to obstruct the process by which those errors and their potential replication might be identified and corrected. The deontological force of this conclusion does not depend on whether the peer review will actually find errors in the second tower: the obligation to cooperate derives from the prior error and the acknowledgment duty, not from the anticipated findings. Engineer A's refusal is therefore not merely imprudent or consequentially harmful — it is a categorical violation of the duty to acknowledge errors and not obstruct legitimate professional accountability processes.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.216249
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Conclusion_213
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 401
cited provision1: III.7.a.
cited provision2: I.1.
cited provision3: I.4.
cited provision4: I.6.
conclusion number: 213
conclusion text: In response to Q401: If Engineer B had complied with the Owner's initial instruction and conducted the peer review covertly without notifying Engineer A, the findings would have been ethically compromised and their usability by the Owner would have been seriously impaired. The procedural violation — conducting a review without the required notification — taints the process regardless of the substantive accuracy of the findings. From an ethical standpoint, the Owner could not rely on those findings to take adverse action against Engineer A without exposing both the Owner and Engineer B to legitimate professional and potentially legal challenge based on the procedural defect. Engineer B would have incurred professional liability for the violation of III.7.a independent of whether the review uncovered genuine safety defects. The discovery of real safety defects would not retroactively cure the procedural violation; it would instead create a secondary dilemma in which Engineer B possessed safety-critical information obtained through an ethically impermissible process. In that scenario, Engineer B's public safety obligation under I.1 would likely require disclosure of the safety findings despite the procedural taint, but Engineer B would simultaneously face professional accountability for the manner in which those findings were obtained. The covert review path therefore creates a no-win scenario for Engineer B that the proper notification path entirely avoids.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.216326
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Conclusion_214
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 402
answers question2: 2
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: III.7.a.
cited provision3: III.1.f.
cited provision4: I.6.
conclusion number: 214
conclusion text: In response to Q402: Had no design errors been discovered in the first tower, the ethical calculus for overriding Engineer A's refusal to consent to peer review would have been materially different, and the Board's conclusion that Engineer A may not ethically object would have required substantially more justification. The public safety predicate — confirmed errors in the first tower creating risk of replication in the second — is doing significant work in the Board's analysis. Without that predicate, Engineer A's refusal to consent would have been a closer ethical question. The Owner's right to commission peer review of work being performed for the Owner's benefit is not contingent on prior errors having been found, but the ethical weight of Engineer A's objection would have been considerably greater in the absence of a demonstrated quality concern. In that scenario, the peer review would have appeared more like an expression of Owner distrust than a response to identified risk, and Engineer A's dignity and professional autonomy interests would have carried more weight against the non-obstruction principle. The Board's conclusion that Engineer A may not ethically object is therefore most defensible as a public-safety-predicated conclusion, and its application to peer reviews lacking that predicate would require independent justification grounded in the Owner's general right to quality assurance rather than in the specific safety imperative present in this case.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.216406
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Conclusion_215
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 403
answers question2: 102
cited provision1: III.7.a.
cited provision2: III.1.f.
cited provision3: I.6.
cited provision4: I.4.
conclusion number: 215
conclusion text: In response to Q403: If the Owner had chosen to terminate Engineer A from the project rather than notify them of the peer review, Engineer B's notification obligation would not have been fully discharged by that termination. The notification obligation under III.7.a exists to protect the reviewed engineer's professional interests and dignity — it is not merely a procedural formality that can be satisfied by eliminating the engineer's role in the project. Termination of Engineer A would have changed the factual circumstances of the review but would not have addressed the underlying professional courtesy norm that notification is designed to serve. Moreover, a termination motivated primarily by the desire to avoid the notification obligation would itself raise independent ethical concerns: it would constitute a use of the Owner's contractual power to circumvent a professional norm, and Engineer B's awareness of that motivation would implicate Engineer B's own obligation not to participate in arrangements that undermine professional standards. The termination path would also raise the question of whether Engineer B, now reviewing the work of a terminated engineer who had no opportunity to respond or participate, was conducting a fair and professionally legitimate review — a question that bears directly on the integrity of the peer review process itself and on Engineer B's obligations under I.6.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.216491
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Conclusion_216
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 404
cited provision1: III.1.a.
cited provision2: I.1.
cited provision3: III.7.a.
cited provision4: I.6.
conclusion number: 216
conclusion text: In response to Q404: If Engineer A had proactively disclosed the first-tower design errors to the Owner before the peer review was commissioned, that voluntary disclosure would have materially improved Engineer A's ethical standing but would not have extinguished the Owner's right to commission peer review of the second tower. The voluntary disclosure would have demonstrated compliance with III.1.a's acknowledgment obligation and would have shown good faith professional accountability — factors that would weigh significantly in Engineer A's favor in any assessment of Engineer A's overall professional conduct. However, the Owner's right to commission peer review of ongoing design work is not contingent on whether the original engineer has acknowledged prior errors; it derives from the Owner's legitimate interest in quality assurance for work being performed on the Owner's behalf. The public safety imperative — the risk that errors might be replicated in the second tower — would have independently sustained the Owner's right to commission the review regardless of Engineer A's prior disclosure. What the voluntary disclosure would have changed is the ethical weight of Engineer A's potential objection to the review: an Engineer A who had proactively acknowledged errors would have had a stronger claim to professional good faith, making any subsequent refusal to cooperate with peer review appear more as a procedural objection than as an attempt to conceal ongoing problems. Even so, that stronger claim would not have been sufficient to override the Owner's right to peer review given the confirmed safety predicate.
conclusion type: question_response
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.216567
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Conclusion_301
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 201
answers question2: 205
answers question3: 301
cited provision1: I.4.
cited provision2: III.7.a.
cited provision3: I.6.
conclusion number: 301
conclusion text: The tension between the Faithful Agent Obligation and the Peer Review Notification Obligation was resolved by treating professional courtesy and transparency as threshold conditions that define the outer boundary of legitimate client service, not as competing values to be balanced against client instructions. When the Owner instructed Engineer B to conduct a covert review, Engineer B's refusal was not a breach of client loyalty but rather a recognition that the Faithful Agent Obligation operates only 'within ethical limits.' The case teaches that client instructions which require an engineer to violate a peer professional's right to notification are categorically outside the scope of faithful agency — the obligation to serve the client simply does not extend to procedurally improper conduct. Engineer B's ethical path was therefore not a compromise between two equal duties but a sequential gate: notification compliance was a precondition to any legitimate engagement, not a factor to be weighed against the Owner's preference for secrecy.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.216650
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Conclusion_302
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 202
answers question2: 302
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: II.1.c.
cited provision3: III.4.
cited provision4: III.7.a.
conclusion number: 302
conclusion text: The tension between the Public Welfare Paramount principle and the Confidentiality Principle was resolved asymmetrically and conditionally: confidentiality protects the content of peer review proceedings once properly initiated, but it does not shield the existence of a peer review from the engineer whose work is being reviewed. The case establishes a two-stage confidentiality architecture. In the first stage — the decision to commission and conduct a peer review — transparency is mandatory and confidentiality yields entirely to the professional dignity and notification rights of the reviewed engineer. In the second stage — the conduct and findings of the review itself — confidentiality is restored as a mechanism that actually facilitates cooperation, because Engineer A's willingness to engage is conditioned on assurance that findings will not be weaponized beyond the immediate safety purpose. This sequencing reveals that Public Welfare Paramount does not simply override confidentiality; rather, it restructures when and how confidentiality applies, using it instrumentally to achieve the safety outcome rather than treating it as an obstacle. The precedent from BER Case 96-8 reinforces this by showing that even within a confidential peer review framework, safety code violations can trigger escalation obligations, confirming that public welfare sets the ceiling above which no confidentiality norm can reach.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.216768
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Conclusion_303
type: EthicalConclusion
type: NamedIndividual
answers question1: 203
answers question2: 2
answers question3: 304
cited provision1: I.1.
cited provision2: I.6.
cited provision3: III.1.a.
cited provision4: III.1.f.
cited provision5: III.7.a.
conclusion number: 303
conclusion text: The tension between the Professional Dignity principle protecting Engineer A from covert or disrespectful review and the Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review principle barring Engineer A from blocking the review was resolved by making dignity-protection procedurally contingent rather than substantively absolute. Engineer A's dignity interest was fully honored at the notification stage — the requirement that Engineer A be informed before any review proceeds is precisely the mechanism by which professional respect is operationalized. However, once notification occurred and the public safety predicate was established through the confirmed design errors in the first tower, Engineer A's dignity-based objections to the review itself were extinguished. The case teaches that professional dignity is a procedural entitlement, not a substantive veto. The Error Acknowledgment and Corrective Disclosure Obligation further erodes Engineer A's standing to object: an engineer who has produced significant design errors and has not proactively disclosed them cannot invoke professional dignity to prevent the very review mechanism designed to protect the public from those errors. The prior errors do not merely weaken Engineer A's dignity claim — they affirmatively activate a competing obligation that runs in the opposite direction, requiring facilitation rather than obstruction of the review. This interaction between the dignity principle and the error acknowledgment obligation reveals that professional dignity in the NSPE framework is not a shield against accountability but a guarantee of fair process within an accountability structure.
conclusion type: principle_synthesis
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.216867
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Confidentiality-Bounded Public Safety Escalation Invoked In BER 96-8 Precedent
type: Confidentiality-BoundedPublicSafetyEscalationinPeerReview
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer B BER 96-8 Reviewed Firm's potential safety code violations
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
balancingwith: Contractual obligations of peer reviewer
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: In BER Case 96-8, Engineer A as peer reviewer discovered potential safety code violations in Engineer B's work despite having contractually agreed to confidentiality, and was required to follow a sequential escalation process: first discuss with Engineer B, then warn of intent to report, then report to appropriate authorities if unresolved
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:15:28.047091+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:15:28.047091+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Contractual confidentiality in peer review programs cannot override the public welfare obligation to disclose genuine safety violations, but the disclosure must follow a procedurally appropriate sequence that respects the reviewed engineer's opportunity to respond
invokedby: Engineer A BER 96-8 Peer Review Program Participant
principleclass: Confidentiality-Bounded Public Safety Escalation in Peer Review
sourcetext: Engineer A had an obligation to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B in order to seek clarification and resolution. That could range from a joint determination that there no violation of code requirements, that the violations were de minimis and did not threaten public health, safety, and welfare, or that there were violations and that the violations did threaten public, health, safety, and welfare but that Engineer B refused to make adjustments.
tensionresolution: Public welfare paramount overrides contractual confidentiality when safety violations are confirmed and cannot be resolved through direct engagement; procedural sequence protects reviewed engineer's dignity while ensuring public protection
textreferences: Engineer A contractually agreed not to disclose confidential information acquired in the review.
textreferences: Engineer A determined that Engineer B's work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements, placing the public health, safety, and welfare at risk.
textreferences: Engineer A had an obligation to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B in order to seek clarification and resolution.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.956769
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Confidentiality Principle Invoked As Enabling Mechanism for Peer Review Cooperation
type: ConfidentialityPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Peer review confidentiality agreement structures in design-build contexts
balancingwith: Peer Review Notification and Consent Obligation
balancingwith: Transparency Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The discussion notes that confidentiality agreements in peer review contexts — requiring the reviewer to keep results confidential or giving the reviewed engineer an opportunity to explain design decisions — encourage the reviewed firm to cooperate fully, build trust, and support a collegial atmosphere, illustrating how confidentiality obligations can serve as an enabling condition for effective peer review rather than an obstacle to it
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:15:28.047091+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:15:28.047091+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Confidentiality in peer review is not merely a protection for the reviewer but a mechanism that facilitates the reviewed engineer's cooperation by reducing reputational risk, thereby serving the quality assurance purpose of the review
invokedby: Owner Development Project Client
principleclass: Confidentiality Principle
sourcetext: Such confidentiality agreements encourage the firm being reviewed to cooperate fully, build trust, and support a collegial atmosphere.
tensionresolution: Confidentiality and transparency are balanced by requiring notification to the reviewed engineer while protecting review findings from broader disclosure, enabling cooperation without public exposure
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Such confidentiality agreements encourage the firm being reviewed to cooperate fully, build trust, and support a collegial atmosphere.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.957197
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Covert Peer Review Instruction Resolved by Owner Notification
type: CovertPeerReviewInstructionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Owner's initial covert instruction through Owner's reluctant agreement to notify Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Owner
concept category: State
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:09:58.790115+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:09:58.790115+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: 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.
stateclass: Covert Peer Review Instruction State
subject: Owner's initial instruction to Engineer B to conduct peer review without notifying Engineer A
terminatedby: Owner's reluctant agreement to advise Engineer A of the planned peer review
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Owner reluctantly agreed to advise Engineer A of the planned peer review.
triggeringevent: Owner's instruction to Engineer B to conduct peer review without Engineer A's knowledge
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.951808
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

DP1
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP1
decision question: Must Engineer B refuse to conduct the peer review without first ensuring Engineer A is notified of the planned review, and must Engineer B decline the engagement entirely if the Owner insists on covert review?
focus: Engineer B is retained by the Owner to conduct a peer review of Engineer A's second tower designs, but the Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the review covertly without notifying Engineer A. Engineer B objects to the covert instruction. This decision point addresses whether Engineer B must ensure Engineer A is notified before commencing the review, and whether Engineer B must refuse the engagement entirely if the Owner does not agree to notify Engineer A.
option1: Refuse to conduct the peer review without first notifying Engineer A, condition acceptance of the engagement on the Owner's agreement to notify Engineer A before any review activity commences, and verify that notification has actually occurred before proceeding
option2: Accept the covert peer review assignment as instructed by the Owner and conduct the review of Engineer A's second tower designs without notifying Engineer A
role label: Engineer B Peer Review Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.218536
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

DP10
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP10
decision question: Should Engineer B refuse to conduct a covert peer review and independently ensure that Engineer A is notified of the planned review before any engagement proceeds?
focus: Engineer B's obligation to refuse covert peer review and ensure Engineer A is notified before commencing any review of Engineer A's work on the second tower
option1: Refuse to conduct the peer review covertly, condition engagement on Owner notifying Engineer A, and verify that notification has occurred before commencing any review activity
option2: Accept the Owner's covert review instruction and proceed with the peer review without notifying Engineer A, relying on the Owner's authority to define the engagement scope
role label: Engineer B
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.219357
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

DP11
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP11
decision question: Should Engineer A cooperate with and actively facilitate the peer review of the second tower plans rather than refuse consent, given the known design errors in the first tower and the public safety risk of replication?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to cooperate with the peer review of the second tower plans and refrain from obstructing a legitimately commissioned review, given known design errors in the first tower
option1: Refuse to consent to the peer review of the second tower plans and decline to cooperate with Engineer B's review process
option2: Cooperate with and actively facilitate the peer review of the second tower plans, providing Engineer B access to the relevant design documents and refraining from obstructing the review process
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.219456
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

DP12
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP12
decision question: Should Engineer A proactively disclose the known design errors in the first tower to the Owner and, where safety code violations are implicated, escalate to relevant authorities, independent of and prior to any peer review process?
focus: Engineer A's independent affirmative obligation to disclose known design errors in the first tower to the Owner and, if safety code violations are confirmed, to escalate to relevant authorities — obligations that exist prior to and independent of any peer review being commissioned
option1: Proactively disclose the known first-tower design errors to the Owner immediately upon awareness, facilitate the peer review of the second tower, and escalate to relevant authorities if safety code violations are confirmed and the Owner fails to act
option2: Withhold disclosure of the first-tower design errors from the Owner, refuse consent to the peer review, and rely on internal corrective redesign without formal notification to the Owner or relevant authorities
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.219642
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

DP13
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP13
decision question: Should Engineer A acknowledge the known design errors and cooperate with the peer review of the second tower, or refuse consent and obstruct the review process?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to acknowledge known design errors in the first tower and cooperate with peer review of the second tower, given the public safety predicate established by those prior errors and the independent error acknowledgment duty under III.1.a.
option1: Refuse consent to peer review and withhold cooperation from the review process
option2: Acknowledge the known design errors to the Owner, cooperate with the peer review of the second tower, and actively facilitate the review process
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.219767
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

DP2
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP2
decision question: Must Engineer A cooperate with and refrain from obstructing the Owner's legitimately commissioned peer review of the second tower designs, particularly given that significant design errors were already discovered in Engineer A's first tower work?
focus: After being notified that a peer review of the second tower designs has been commissioned — following the discovery of significant design errors in Engineer A's first tower work — Engineer A objects and refuses to consent to the peer review. This decision point addresses whether Engineer A may ethically refuse to cooperate with the legitimately commissioned peer review, and whether Engineer A's prior design errors independently compel facilitation of the review as a matter of professional accountability and public safety.
option1: Refuse to consent to the peer review of the second tower designs and actively obstruct Engineer B's ability to conduct the review
option2: Cooperate fully with Engineer B's peer review of the second tower designs, provide access to relevant design documents, and refrain from obstructing the Owner's legitimate quality assurance measure
role label: Engineer A Non-Obstruction Peer Review Obligation Instance
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.218634
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

DP3
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP3
decision question: Is the Owner obligated to ensure that the peer review of Engineer A's second tower designs is conducted through procedurally fair means, including notifying Engineer A before the review commences, rather than instructing Engineer B to conduct the review covertly?
focus: The Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review of Engineer A's second tower designs without letting Engineer A know, thereby directing a covert peer review process. This decision point addresses whether the Owner bears an independent obligation to ensure the peer review is conducted through procedurally fair means — including notifying Engineer A before the review commences — and whether the Owner's instruction to conduct a covert review itself constitutes an ethical violation of the procedural fairness duty owed to Engineer A as a licensed professional whose reputation and livelihood are implicated.
option1: Instruct Engineer B to conduct the peer review of Engineer A's second tower designs covertly without notifying Engineer A that the review is being conducted
option2: Notify Engineer A that a peer review of the second tower designs has been commissioned before Engineer B commences any review activity, ensuring the review proceeds through procedurally fair means consistent with III.7.a
role label: Client
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.218724
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

DP4
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP4
decision question: Should Engineer B refuse the Owner's instruction to conduct a covert peer review and independently ensure Engineer A is notified as a precondition to engagement?
focus: Engineer B Faithful Agent vs. Peer Review Notification Obligation: Whether Engineer B must refuse the Owner's covert review instruction and independently ensure Engineer A is notified before commencing any peer review activity
option1: Refuse the covert review instruction, condition engagement on Owner's agreement to notify Engineer A, and verify that notification has actually occurred before commencing any peer review activity
option2: Accept the Owner's covert review instruction and proceed with peer review of Engineer A's plans without notifying Engineer A
role label: Engineer B Peer Review Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.218794
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

DP5
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP5
decision question: Should Engineer A cooperate with and actively facilitate the peer review of the second tower plans rather than refuse consent, given the confirmed design errors in the first tower and the public safety implications?
focus: Engineer A Non-Obstruction and Post-Error Peer Review Facilitation: Whether Engineer A must cooperate with and actively facilitate the peer review of the second tower plans given confirmed design errors in the first tower
option1: Refuse consent to the peer review of the second tower plans and decline to cooperate with Engineer B's review process
option2: Cooperate with and actively facilitate the peer review of the second tower plans, providing Engineer B access to the plans and relevant design information
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.218862
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

DP6
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP6
decision question: Should Engineer A proactively disclose the known design errors in the first tower to the Owner as an independent, self-executing obligation arising at the moment of awareness, irrespective of whether a peer review has been commissioned or the Owner has demanded disclosure?
focus: Engineer A Error Acknowledgment and Independent Disclosure Obligation: Whether Engineer A must proactively disclose the known first-tower design errors to the Owner independently of and prior to any peer review, and whether that obligation is self-executing upon Engineer A's own awareness
option1: Proactively disclose the known first-tower design errors to the Owner upon awareness, before any peer review is commissioned and without waiting for the Owner to demand disclosure
option2: Withhold disclosure of the first-tower design errors from the Owner and continue designing the second tower without informing the Owner of the known defects
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.218956
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

DP7
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP7
decision question: Should Engineer B refuse the Owner's instruction to conduct a covert peer review and independently ensure that Engineer A is notified before commencing any review activity?
focus: Engineer B's obligation to refuse covert peer review and ensure Engineer A is notified before commencing any review activity, resolving the tension between the Faithful Agent Obligation and the Peer Review Notification Obligation.
option1: Refuse the covert review instruction, condition engagement on Owner's agreement to notify Engineer A, and verify that notification has actually occurred before commencing any review activity
option2: Accept the Owner's covert review instruction and proceed with peer review without notifying Engineer A, treating client loyalty as the overriding obligation
role label: Engineer B Peer Review Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.219034
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

DP8
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP8
decision question: Should Engineer A cooperate with and refrain from obstructing the Owner-commissioned peer review of the second tower plans, given the confirmed design errors in the first tower and the public safety risk of replication?
focus: Engineer A's obligation to cooperate with the legitimately commissioned peer review of the second tower plans and to refrain from obstructing that review, given prior design errors in the first tower and the activated public safety imperative.
option1: Refuse to consent to the peer review of the second tower plans and obstruct the review process
option2: Cooperate with and actively facilitate the Owner-commissioned peer review of the second tower plans, consistent with the error acknowledgment obligation and public safety imperative
role label: Engineer A
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.219102
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

DP9
type: DecisionPoint
type: NamedIndividual
decision point id: DP9
decision question: Should Engineer B treat the peer review confidentiality framework as bounded by an independent public safety escalation obligation, such that Engineer B must report confirmed structural defects to public authorities if the Owner suppresses or declines to act on the findings?
focus: Engineer B's obligation to escalate known design defects to public authorities if the Owner declines to act on peer review findings, resolving the tension between peer review confidentiality and the paramount public safety duty.
option1: Treat the peer review confidentiality obligation as absolute and refrain from escalating findings to public authorities even if the Owner declines to act on confirmed structural defects
option2: Recognize the peer review confidentiality framework as bounded by the public safety paramount obligation and escalate confirmed structural defects to relevant public authorities if the Owner suppresses or fails to act on the findings
role label: Engineer B Peer Review Engineer
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.219244
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Design Errors Discovered
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.962422
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Design Errors Discovered (Event 1) → Tower Two Plans Implicated (Event 2)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.962650
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A BER 18-10 Post-Review Design-Build Conflict Assessment Instance
type: Post-ReviewDesign-BuildConflictAssessmentCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Review Design-Build Conflict Assessment Capability
capabilitystatement: In the BER Case 18-10 precedent, Engineer A's firm demonstrated the capability to assess whether participation in a design-build joint venture following a prior independent review role was ethically permissible, correctly identifying the conditions (agency approval, state law compliance) that resolved the conditional conflict
casecontext: BER Case 18-10: Engineer A served as lead engineer on independent external review; approximately one year later was invited to participate in design-build joint venture for the same project
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's firm's assessment that design-build participation was permissible subject to agency approval and compliance with applicable state conflict-of-interest laws
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:18:24.895246+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:18:24.895246+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (BER 18-10 precedent role)
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: In BER Case 18-10, Engineer A was the lead engineer on an independent external review of an agency-prepared project.
textreferences: In BER Case 18-10, Engineer A was the lead engineer on an independent external review of an agency-prepared project.
textreferences: In Case 18-10, the Board concluded that, so long as the agency approves and the work complies with applicable state laws and regulations regarding conflicts of interest, it would not be unethical for Engineer A's firm to participate in a design-build joint venture submitting a proposal for the project.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.961376
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A BER 18-10 Post-Review Design-Build Conflict Clearance Instance
type: Post-ReviewDesign-BuildParticipationConflictClearanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case 18-10 referenced as precedent establishing that prior review participation creates a conditional constraint on subsequent design-build participation requiring agency approval and statutory compliance verification
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A's firm (BER Case 18-10 context)
constraintclass: Post-Review Design-Build Participation Conflict Clearance Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's firm was constrained from participating in the design-build joint venture for the project without first obtaining agency approval and verifying compliance with applicable state conflict-of-interest laws, given the firm's prior role conducting an independent external review of the agency-prepared project.
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:18:02.960809+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:18:02.960809+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: BER Case 18-10; applicable state conflict-of-interest statutes; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: in BER Case 18-10, Engineer A was the lead engineer on an independent external review of an agency-prepared project.
temporalscope: At the time of invitation to join design-build RFP joint venture, approximately one year after prior review
textreferences: in BER Case 18-10, Engineer A was the lead engineer on an independent external review of an agency-prepared project.
textreferences: the Board concluded that, so long as the agency approves and the work complies with applicable state laws and regulations regarding conflicts of interest, it would not be unethical for Engineer A's firm to participate in a design-build joint venture submitting a proposal for the project.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.959574
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A BER 18-10 Post-Review Design-Build Participant
type: Design-BuildJointVentureEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Independent external review and subsequent design-build participation', 'ethical_status': 'Not unethical subject to agency approval and conflict-of-interest law compliance', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 18-10'}
caseinvolvement: In BER Case 18-10 precedent, Engineer A served as lead engineer on an independent external review of an agency project and subsequently participated in a design-build joint venture RFP for the same project; BER concluded participation was not unethical provided agency approval and legal compliance.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:09:54.483622+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:09:54.483622+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'joint_venture_proposer_for', 'target': 'Agency Design-Build RFP'}
relationships: {'type': 'prior_reviewer_of', 'target': 'Agency Project'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Design-Build Joint Venture Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A was the lead engineer on an independent external review of an agency-prepared project
textreferences: Engineer A was the lead engineer on an independent external review of an agency-prepared project
textreferences: Engineer A's firm is invited to be part of a joint venture responding to a design-build RFP for the project
textreferences: it would not be unethical for Engineer A's firm to participate in a design-build joint venture submitting a proposal for the project
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.950462
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A BER 18-10 Post-Review Design-Build Participation Conditional
type: Post-ReviewDesign-BuildParticipationConditionalEthicsObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case 18-10 precedent: Engineer A was lead engineer on an independent external review of an agency project; approximately one year later, Engineer A's firm was invited to participate in a design-build joint venture responding to an RFP for the same project.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:16:44.479624+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:16:44.479624+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer A's firm (BER 18-10)
obligationclass: Post-Review Design-Build Participation Conditional Ethics Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A's firm was obligated to obtain agency approval and verify compliance with applicable state conflict-of-interest laws before participating in a design-build joint venture for a project Engineer A had previously reviewed as lead engineer on an independent external review.
sourcetext: In Case 18-10, the Board concluded that, so long as the agency approves and the work complies with applicable state laws and regulations regarding conflicts of interest, it would not be unethical for Engineer A's firm to participate in a design-build joint venture submitting a proposal for the project.
temporalscope: Before submitting a design-build proposal for the project previously reviewed
textreferences: In Case 18-10, the Board concluded that, so long as the agency approves and the work complies with applicable state laws and regulations regarding conflicts of interest, it would not be unethical for Engineer A's firm to participate in a design-build joint venture submitting a proposal for the project.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.958173
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A BER 96-8 Peer Review Confidentiality Framework Navigation Instance
type: PeerReviewConfidentialityFrameworkNavigationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Review Confidentiality Framework Navigation Capability
capabilitystatement: In the BER Case 96-8 precedent, Engineer A demonstrated the capability to navigate the tension between contractual confidentiality obligations and mandatory safety disclosure requirements, correctly identifying that safety code violations override confidentiality commitments
casecontext: BER Case 96-8: Engineer A had contractually agreed to confidentiality but correctly determined that safety code violations required escalation beyond the confidentiality boundary
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's recognition that the contractual confidentiality agreement did not prevent disclosure of safety code violations to appropriate authorities when Engineer B refused to make corrections
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:18:24.895246+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:18:24.895246+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (BER 96-8 precedent role)
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: Engineer A contractually agreed not to disclose confidential information acquired in the review.
textreferences: Engineer A contractually agreed not to disclose confidential information acquired in the review.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A had an obligation to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B in order to seek clarification and resolution.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.961227
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A BER 96-8 Peer Review Confidentiality Safety Override Instance
type: PeerReviewConfidentialitySafetyOverrideConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case 96-8 referenced as precedent establishing that confidentiality agreements in peer review programs do not extinguish the reviewer's obligation to report discovered safety code violations threatening public welfare
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer A (as peer reviewer in BER Case 96-8 context)
constraintclass: Peer Review Confidentiality Safety Override Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A, serving as peer reviewer under a confidentiality agreement in an organized peer review program, was constrained from remaining silent about discovered potential safety code violations in Engineer B's work — the confidentiality obligation could not override the paramount duty to protect public health, safety, and welfare, requiring graduated escalation from direct discussion to authority notification.
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:18:02.960809+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:18:02.960809+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: BER Case 96-8; NSPE Code of Ethics public safety paramount provisions
sourcetext: Engineer A determined that Engineer B's work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements, placing the public health, safety, and welfare at risk.
temporalscope: Upon discovery of potential safety code violations during confidential peer review
textreferences: Engineer A determined that Engineer B's work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements, placing the public health, safety, and welfare at risk.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Engineer A had an obligation to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B in order to seek clarification and resolution.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.959421
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A BER 96-8 Peer Review Program Participant
type: PeerReviewEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Organized peer review program participation', 'ethical_status': 'Obligated to discuss concerns with reviewed engineer and report unresolved safety violations to authorities', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 96-8'}
caseinvolvement: In BER Case 96-8 precedent, Engineer A served as a peer reviewer in an organized peer review program, contractually agreed to confidentiality, was assigned to review Engineer B's firm work across multiple projects, discovered potential safety code violations, and bore obligations to discuss with Engineer B and report to authorities if unresolved.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:09:54.483622+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:09:54.483622+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'confidentiality_agreement_with', 'target': 'Peer Review Program'}
relationships: {'type': 'reporting_obligation_to', 'target': 'Appropriate Authorities'}
relationships: {'type': 'reviews_work_of', 'target': 'Engineer B BER 96-8 Reviewed Firm'}
rolecategory: professional_peer
roleclass: Peer Review Engineer
sourcetext: Engineer A was a peer reviewer serving as part of an organized peer-review program
textreferences: Engineer A had an obligation to first advise Engineer B that Engineer A had an obligation to inform the appropriate authorities
textreferences: Engineer A had an obligation to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B in order to seek clarification and resolution
textreferences: Engineer A was a peer reviewer serving as part of an organized peer-review program
textreferences: When selected as a reviewer for the program, Engineer A contractually agreed not to disclose confidential information acquired in the review
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.950604
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A BER 96-8 Peer Review Safety Code Violation Escalation
type: PeerReviewSafetyCodeViolationEscalationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: BER Case 96-8 precedent: Engineer A was a peer reviewer in an organized program who contractually agreed to confidentiality; discovered Engineer B's work may violate state and local safety codes placing public health, safety, and welfare at risk.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:16:44.479624+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:16:44.479624+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A (BER 96-8)
obligationclass: Peer Review Safety Code Violation Escalation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A, serving as peer reviewer in an organized peer review program, was obligated upon discovering potential safety code violations in Engineer B's work to immediately discuss the concerns with Engineer B to seek clarification and resolution, and if unresolved, to advise Engineer B of the obligation to inform appropriate authorities before doing so, notwithstanding the contractual confidentiality agreement.
sourcetext: Engineer A had an obligation to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B in order to seek clarification and resolution.
temporalscope: Upon discovery of potential safety code violations during the peer review
textreferences: Engineer A had an obligation to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B in order to seek clarification and resolution.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.958033
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A BER 96-8 Peer Review Safety Escalation Sequencing Instance
type: PeerReviewSafetyEscalationSequencingCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Review Safety Escalation Sequencing Capability
capabilitystatement: In the BER Case 96-8 precedent, Engineer A demonstrated the capability to correctly sequence safety escalation steps upon discovering potential safety code violations during a confidential peer review — first discussing with Engineer B, then advising of intent to report, then reporting to authorities
casecontext: BER Case 96-8 precedent: Engineer A serving as peer reviewer under confidentiality agreement discovered potential safety code violations in Engineer B's work and followed the correct graduated escalation sequence
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's graduated escalation approach in BER 96-8: collegial discussion first, advance notice of reporting intent, then actual reporting to appropriate authorities
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:18:24.895246+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:18:24.895246+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A (BER 96-8 precedent role)
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: The BER concluded that Engineer A had an obligation to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B in order to seek clarification and resolution.
textreferences: The BER concluded that Engineer A had an obligation to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B in order to seek clarification and resolution.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.961097
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Client Interest Alignment Peer Review Cooperation Second Tower
type: ClientInterestAlignmentPeerReviewCooperationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Owner commissioned peer review of second tower designs after discovering significant design errors in first tower; Engineer A refused to cooperate, contrary to the client's legitimate quality assurance interest.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:16:44.479624+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:16:44.479624+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Client Interest Alignment Peer Review Cooperation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to cooperate fully with Engineer B's peer review as an expression of the faithful agent duty to act in the best interests of the Owner client, who had a legitimate interest in quality assurance following discovery of design errors in the first tower.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Upon notification of the planned peer review and throughout the peer review process
textreferences: Each of those requirements strongly indicates that Engineer A should participate fully and cooperatively in Engineer B's peer review.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: The known design defects in the first tower simply makes each of those requirements more urgent.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.957777
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Consent Refusal Override Constraint Instance
type: ReviewedEngineerConsentRefusalOverrideConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A refused to consent to peer review after being notified, placing Owner in the position of choosing among difficult options including proceeding over Engineer A's objection
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.85
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Reviewed Engineer Consent Refusal Override Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's refusal to consent to the peer review of the second tower plans did not constitute an absolute veto over the legitimately commissioned review, particularly given the confirmed significant design errors in the first tower plans, and Engineer A was constrained from treating consent refusal as a complete bar to the peer review proceeding.
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:13:22.677259+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:13:22.677259+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Public safety paramount obligation; BER case precedent on peer review
sourcetext: When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A, Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
temporalscope: Following Engineer A's notification of the peer review and through the peer review process
textreferences: When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A, Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.954786
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Creates Flawed Plans
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.962214
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Creates Flawed Plans (Action 1) → Design Errors Discovered (Event 1)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.962621
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Design Error Triggering Peer Review Obligation
type: DesignErrorDiscoveredinCompletedWorkState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From discovery of design defects in first tower through completion of peer review and remediation
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Owner
affectedparties: Public safety stakeholders
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:09:58.790115+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:09:58.790115+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: The known design defects in the first tower simply makes each of those requirements more urgent.
stateclass: Design Error Discovered in Completed Work State
subject: Known design defects in Engineer A's first tower work, providing factual predicate for peer review of second tower
terminatedby: Successful peer review, error acknowledgment, and remediation
textreferences: The known design defects in the first tower simply makes each of those requirements more urgent.
triggeringevent: Identification of significant design defects in Engineer A's completed first tower work
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.951338
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Error Acknowledgment Obligation Instance
type: ErrorAcknowledgment
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Significant design errors were discovered in Engineer A's plans and designs during construction of the first tower; Engineer A subsequently refused to consent to peer review of the second tower designs.
compliancestatus: unclear
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:12:24.459752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:12:24.459752+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Error Acknowledgment
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to acknowledge the significant design errors discovered in the first tower plans and designs, and to take affirmative steps to address those errors rather than resisting quality assurance measures such as the peer review of the second tower.
sourcetext: As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A.
temporalscope: Upon discovery of significant design errors during construction of the first tower
textreferences: As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A.
textreferences: When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A, Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.954110
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Error Acknowledgment Obligation Recognition Deficit Instance
type: ErrorAcknowledgmentObligationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Error Acknowledgment Obligation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to demonstrate the capability to recognize that the significant design errors discovered in the first tower created an affirmative obligation to acknowledge those errors and facilitate — rather than obstruct — independent review of the second tower designs.
casecontext: Engineer A's conduct following discovery of first tower design errors demonstrated failure to recognize error acknowledgment and peer review facilitation obligations.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.86
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's refusal to consent to peer review rather than acknowledging errors and supporting quality assurance for the second tower.
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:13:41.187409+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:13:41.187409+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A
textreferences: Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
textreferences: several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.955910
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Error Acknowledgment Obligation Recognition Peer Review Instance
type: ErrorAcknowledgmentObligationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Error Acknowledgment Obligation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to recognize that the significant design errors discovered in the first tower created an affirmative obligation to acknowledge those errors and to cooperate with the peer review process for the second tower, rather than obstructing independent review
casecontext: Significant design errors were discovered during construction of the first tower; Engineer A was obligated to acknowledge these errors and facilitate rather than obstruct review of the second tower designs
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: The Board's finding that Engineer A's refusal to cooperate was unethical given the known design defects establishes this as a required capability
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:18:24.895246+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:18:24.895246+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: The known design defects in the first tower simply makes each of those requirements more urgent.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.961774
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Error Acknowledgment Responsibility Acceptance Second Tower
type: ErrorAcknowledgment
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Significant design errors were discovered during construction of the first tower; Engineer A's professional accountability obligations required acknowledgment of those errors and cooperation with quality assurance measures for the second tower.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:16:44.479624+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:16:44.479624+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Error Acknowledgment
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to take responsibility for the design errors discovered in the first tower and to acknowledge those errors as part of the professional accountability that also required cooperation with the peer review of the second tower designs.
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Upon discovery of design errors in the first tower and throughout the peer review process for the second tower
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: The known design defects in the first tower simply makes each of those requirements more urgent.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.958430
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Cooperation with Peer Review
type: ReviewedEngineerNon-CooperationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Owner's notification to Engineer A of planned peer review through Engineer A's decision to cooperate or refuse
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Owner
affectedparties: Public affected by potentially defective designs
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:09:58.790115+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:09:58.790115+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: the Board concludes that it would be unethical for Engineer A to fail to cooperate.
stateclass: Reviewed Engineer Non-Cooperation State
subject: Engineer A's potential refusal to cooperate with Engineer B's peer review of Engineer A's work
terminatedby: Engineer A's agreement to cooperate fully, or Owner's decision to proceed without Engineer A
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: The known design defects in the first tower simply makes each of those requirements more urgent.
textreferences: the Board concludes that it would be unethical for Engineer A to fail to cooperate.
triggeringevent: Engineer A's potential refusal to consent to and cooperate with peer review, compounded by known design defects in first tower
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.951196
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Obstruction Peer Review Ethical Constraint Instance
type: Non-DeceptionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A's refusal to consent to peer review, in the context of confirmed prior design errors, risked creating a false impression that the second tower plans were beyond legitimate professional scrutiny
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.78
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Non-Deception (Constraint)
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from using consent refusal as a mechanism to prevent legitimate scrutiny of the second tower plans in a manner that would create a misleading impression of the adequacy of those plans, given the known significant errors in the first tower work.
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:13:22.677259+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:13:22.677259+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Non-Deception provisions; Ethics code provisions prohibiting deceptive conduct
sourcetext: Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
temporalscope: Following notification of the peer review through the peer review process
textreferences: Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
textreferences: Several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.955183
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Obstruction Peer Review Obligation Instance
type: Non-ObstructionofLegitimatePeerReviewObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Owner commissioned a peer review of Engineer A's second tower designs after significant errors were found in the first tower; Engineer A refused to consent to the peer review even after being properly notified.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:12:24.459752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:12:24.459752+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from refusing consent to the legitimately commissioned peer review of the second tower designs, particularly given that significant design errors had already been discovered in the first tower, and to cooperate with the Owner's reasonable quality assurance measure.
sourcetext: When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A, Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
temporalscope: Upon being notified by the Owner that a peer review of the second tower designs had been commissioned
textreferences: As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A.
textreferences: When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A, Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.953658
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Obstruction Peer Review Precedent Reasoning Deficit Instance
type: Precedent-BasedEthicalReasoningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to apply precedent-based ethical reasoning — including BER Case 96-8 and BER Case 18-10 — that would have informed the recognition that refusing consent to a legitimately commissioned peer review following known design errors constitutes an impermissible obstruction of professional quality assurance.
casecontext: Engineer A's conduct was inconsistent with established BER precedent on peer review ethics, suggesting failure to apply relevant precedent-based reasoning.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.8
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's refusal to consent to peer review, which is inconsistent with established BER precedent on peer review obligations and professional accountability.
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:13:41.187409+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:13:41.187409+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
textreferences: Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
textreferences: several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.956189
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Non-Obstruction Peer Review Second Tower Refusal
type: Non-ObstructionofLegitimatePeerReviewObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Following discovery of significant design errors in the first tower, Owner commissioned Engineer B to conduct a peer review of Engineer A's second tower designs; Engineer A refused to consent and cooperate with the peer review.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:16:44.479624+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:16:44.479624+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to refrain from refusing consent to and cooperation with Engineer B's peer review of the second tower designs, recognizing that the discovery of significant design errors in the first tower created a heightened public safety interest in independent verification and that refusal constituted a failure of professional accountability.
sourcetext: the Board concludes that it would be unethical for Engineer A to fail to cooperate
temporalscope: Upon notification of the planned peer review of the second tower designs
textreferences: If Engineer A refused to consent and cooperate, Owner would be then face with three options: to move forward with the peer review conducted under difficult and limiting circumstances, to move forward without the peer review . . . or to move forward without Engineer A.
textreferences: the Board concludes that it would be unethical for Engineer A to fail to cooperate
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.957646
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Notified Of Review
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.962555
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Original Design Engineer
type: OriginalDesignEngineerSubjecttoPeerReview
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Building structural or architectural design', 'conduct': 'Objected to and refused consent for peer review'}
caseinvolvement: Prepared original plans and designs for both towers; significant design errors were discovered during construction of the first tower; refused to consent to peer review of second tower designs
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:08:34.110559+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:08:34.110559+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Owner'}
relationships: {'type': 'original_designer', 'target': 'Tower One and Tower Two designs'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer_subject', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Original Design Engineer Subject to Peer Review
sourcetext: plans and design of Engineer A
textreferences: Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review
textreferences: plans and design of Engineer A
textreferences: several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.946598
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Original Designer Peer Review Subject
type: OriginalDesignEngineerSubjecttoPeerReview
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Original project design', 'ethical_status': 'Obligated to cooperate; refusal would be unethical'}
caseinvolvement: Original designer of the project whose work contains known design defects and who is subject to a peer review initiated by the Owner; initially the subject of an instruction to keep the review confidential from them, but ultimately notified; bears ethical obligation to cooperate fully with Engineer B's peer review.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:09:54.483622+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:09:54.483622+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Owner'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer_reviewed_by', 'target': 'Engineer B Peer Reviewer'}
relationships: {'type': 'subject_of_review', 'target': 'Peer Review Process'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Original Design Engineer Subject to Peer Review
sourcetext: it would be unethical for Engineer A to fail to cooperate
textreferences: Engineer A should participate fully and cooperatively in Engineer B's peer review
textreferences: If Engineer A refused to consent and cooperate, Owner would be then face with three options
textreferences: The known design defects in the first tower simply makes each of those requirements more urgent
textreferences: it would be unethical for Engineer A to fail to cooperate
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.949553
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Peer Review Consent Refusal Recognition Deficit Instance
type: PeerReviewConsentRefusalRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Review Consent Refusal Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to demonstrate the capability to recognize that refusing consent to a legitimately commissioned peer review — particularly in the context of known significant design errors in the first tower — constituted an ethically impermissible obstruction of the Owner's quality assurance process.
casecontext: After being notified of the peer review, Engineer A refused consent, demonstrating failure to recognize the obligation to facilitate rather than obstruct independent review of deficient work.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.89
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's refusal to consent to the peer review of the second tower designs despite known significant errors in the first tower designs.
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:13:41.187409+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:13:41.187409+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
textreferences: Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
textreferences: several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.955651
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Peer Review Cooperation Obligation Recognition Capability Instance
type: PeerReviewCooperationObligationRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Review Cooperation Obligation Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to recognize that multiple independent professional obligations — responsibility for actions, error acknowledgment, client interest, and public safety paramountcy — converged to create an obligation to cooperate fully with Engineer B's peer review, with the known first tower defects making this obligation more urgent
casecontext: Engineer A refused peer review cooperation despite known design defects in first tower; Board identified four independent obligations each requiring cooperation
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's failure to exercise this capability is evidenced by the initial refusal to consent; the Board's analysis establishes the capability as the normative standard required
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:18:24.895246+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:18:24.895246+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: 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.
textreferences: Each of those requirements strongly indicates that Engineer A should participate fully and cooperatively in Engineer B's peer review.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: The known design defects in the first tower simply makes each of those requirements more urgent.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.960838
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Error Peer Review Facilitation Obligation Instance
type: Post-ErrorPeerReviewFacilitationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Significant design errors were discovered in Engineer A's first tower designs during construction; Owner commissioned peer review of second tower designs as a quality assurance measure; Engineer A refused to consent to the peer review.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:12:24.459752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:12:24.459752+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Post-Error Peer Review Facilitation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to actively facilitate — or at minimum refrain from obstructing — the Owner's legitimately commissioned peer review of the second tower designs, given that significant design errors had already been discovered in Engineer A's work on the first tower, creating a heightened public safety interest in independent verification of the second tower designs.
sourcetext: As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A.
temporalscope: Upon discovery of significant errors in the first tower and upon notification of the peer review of the second tower
textreferences: As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A.
textreferences: Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B.
textreferences: When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A, Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.953981
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Error Professional Accountability Acceptance Capability Instance
type: Post-ErrorProfessionalAccountabilityAcceptanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Error Professional Accountability Acceptance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was obligated to demonstrate the capability to accept full professional accountability for the significant design errors in the first tower and to cooperate with the peer review of the second tower designs, though the case facts indicate Engineer A initially refused consent
casecontext: Engineer A refused to consent to and cooperate with the peer review of second tower designs despite known design defects in the first tower; Board concluded this refusal was unethical
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.9
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's initial refusal to consent to peer review represents a failure to exercise this capability; the Board's conclusion that such refusal was unethical establishes the capability as required
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:18:24.895246+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:18:24.895246+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Under the facts, the Board concludes that it would be unethical for Engineer A to fail to cooperate.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: The known design defects in the first tower simply makes each of those requirements more urgent.
textreferences: Under the facts, the Board concludes that it would be unethical for Engineer A to fail to cooperate.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.960704
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Post-Error Professional Accountability Acceptance Deficit Instance
type: Post-ErrorProfessionalAccountabilityAcceptanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Post-Error Professional Accountability Acceptance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A failed to demonstrate the capability to accept full professional accountability for the significant design errors discovered in the first tower, instead refusing to consent to peer review of the second tower designs rather than facilitating independent quality assurance.
casecontext: Engineer A's response to the peer review commission demonstrated a failure to accept professional accountability and facilitate corrective quality assurance processes.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's refusal to consent to peer review following discovery of significant design errors in the first tower, representing a failure of professional accountability acceptance.
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:13:41.187409+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:13:41.187409+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A
textreferences: Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
textreferences: several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.955780
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning Peer Review Instance
type: Precedent-BasedEthicalReasoningCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Precedent-Based Ethical Reasoning Capability
capabilitystatement: In the BER Case 96-8 precedent, Engineer A demonstrated the capability to apply established professional ethics precedent to navigate the novel situation of discovering safety violations during a confidential peer review, drawing on the principle that public safety obligations override confidentiality commitments
casecontext: BER Case 96-8 precedent: Engineer A applied professional ethics reasoning to navigate the tension between confidentiality obligations and safety disclosure requirements
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.83
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's application of professional ethics principles to determine the correct escalation sequence when safety violations were discovered during a confidential review
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:18:24.895246+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:18:24.895246+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer A (BER 96-8 precedent role)
proficiencylevel: expert
sourcetext: In BER Case 96-8, Engineer A was a peer reviewer serving as part of an organized peer-review program.
textreferences: In BER Case 96-8, Engineer A was a peer reviewer serving as part of an organized peer-review program.
textreferences: The BER concluded that Engineer A had an obligation to immediately discuss these issues with Engineer B in order to seek clarification and resolution.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.962174
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Prior Design Error Peer Review Facilitation Instance Second Tower
type: PriorDesignErrorPeerReviewFacilitationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Known design defects in first tower made Engineer A's cooperation with peer review of second tower an ethical imperative grounded in multiple independent professional obligations
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Prior Design Error Peer Review Facilitation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from refusing or failing to cooperate with Engineer B's peer review of the second tower designs, given that confirmed significant design errors in the first tower work created heightened professional accountability obligations requiring full and active cooperation with the legitimately commissioned review.
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:18:02.960809+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:18:02.960809+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case analysis
sourcetext: the Board concludes that it would be unethical for Engineer A to fail to cooperate.
temporalscope: Throughout the peer review process for the second tower designs
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: The known design defects in the first tower simply makes each of those requirements more urgent.
textreferences: the Board concludes that it would be unethical for Engineer A to fail to cooperate.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.959270
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Prior Error Peer Review Facilitation Constraint Instance
type: PriorDesignErrorPeerReviewFacilitationConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Significant design errors were discovered in Engineer A's first tower plans; the second tower was a mirror image; Owner commissioned peer review to prevent replication of errors; Engineer A refused consent
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.88
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Prior Design Error Peer Review Facilitation Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained from refusing to facilitate or cooperate with the peer review of the second tower plans given the confirmed significant design errors in the first tower plans, as those prior errors created a heightened professional accountability obligation that limited Engineer A's ability to assert consent-based objections to quality assurance review of the mirror-image second tower.
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:13:22.677259+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:13:22.677259+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; Public safety paramount obligation; Professional accountability norms
sourcetext: As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A.
temporalscope: From the discovery of significant design errors in the first tower through the peer review of the second tower plans
textreferences: As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A.
textreferences: Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
textreferences: Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.954923
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Professional Accountability Peer Review Context Instance
type: ProfessionalAccountabilityAcceptanceforDirectedWorkObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Significant design errors were discovered in Engineer A's first tower designs; Engineer A's refusal to consent to peer review of the second tower represents a failure to accept professional accountability for prior work.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:12:24.459752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:12:24.459752+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Professional Accountability Acceptance for Directed Work Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to accept full professional accountability for the significant design errors discovered in the first tower plans and designs, including accepting the Owner's legitimate quality assurance response of commissioning a peer review of the second tower designs, rather than refusing to consent to the peer review as a means of avoiding further scrutiny of professional work product.
sourcetext: As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A.
temporalscope: Upon discovery of significant design errors and upon notification of the commissioned peer review
textreferences: As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A.
textreferences: When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A, Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.954373
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety Paramount Peer Review Cooperation Constraint Instance
type: PublicSafetyParamountConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Public safety risk from potential replication of first tower design errors in second tower provided independent and paramount basis for Engineer A's cooperation obligation beyond client fidelity or professional accountability grounds
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.94
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Public Safety Paramount Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A was constrained by the paramount obligation to hold public health, safety, and welfare above personal or professional interests — including the interest in avoiding scrutiny of prior work — from refusing to cooperate with Engineer B's peer review of the second tower designs, given the known risk that design errors from the first tower might be replicated in the second.
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:18:02.960809+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:18:02.960809+00:00
importance: high
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics fundamental canon; BER Case analysis
sourcetext: must at all times hold paramount the health, welfare, and safety of the public.
temporalscope: Throughout the peer review process for the second tower designs
textreferences: Each of those requirements strongly indicates that Engineer A should participate fully and cooperatively in Engineer B's peer review.
textreferences: The known design defects in the first tower simply makes each of those requirements more urgent.
textreferences: must at all times hold paramount the health, welfare, and safety of the public.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.960014
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Public Safety Paramount Peer Review Cooperation Second Tower
type: SafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Known design defects in the first tower created heightened public safety interest in independent verification of the second tower designs; Engineer A's refusal to cooperate with peer review placed public safety at risk by impeding quality assurance.
compliancestatus: unmet
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:16:44.479624+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:16:44.479624+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer A
obligationclass: Safety Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer A was obligated to cooperate fully with Engineer B's peer review of the second tower designs on the basis of the paramount obligation to hold public health, welfare, and safety above personal or reputational interests, particularly given the known design defects in the first tower that heightened the urgency of independent safety verification.
sourcetext: must at all times hold paramount the health, welfare, and safety of the public.
temporalscope: Throughout the peer review process for the second tower designs
textreferences: The known design defects in the first tower simply makes each of those requirements more urgent.
textreferences: must at all times hold paramount the health, welfare, and safety of the public.
textreferences: the Board concludes that it would be unethical for Engineer A to fail to cooperate
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.958302
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Peer Review Instance
type: PublicWelfareParamountcyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A was required to recognize that the paramount obligation to hold public health, safety, and welfare above personal or professional self-interest required cooperation with the peer review of the second tower designs, particularly given known defects in the first tower
casecontext: Engineer A's refusal to cooperate with peer review of second tower designs, despite known first tower defects, was found unethical on public safety grounds
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: The Board's conclusion that Engineer A's refusal was unethical on public safety grounds establishes this as a required capability that Engineer A failed to exercise
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:18:24.895246+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:18:24.895246+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: must at all times hold paramount the health, welfare, and safety of the public.
textreferences: The known design defects in the first tower simply makes each of those requirements more urgent.
textreferences: must at all times hold paramount the health, welfare, and safety of the public.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.960968
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Refusal to Consent to Peer Review
type: ReviewedEngineerConsentRefusalState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Engineer A's notification of the peer review through resolution of the consent dispute
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Owner
concept category: State
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:08:47.187342+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:08:47.187342+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review
stateclass: Reviewed Engineer Consent Refusal State
subject: Engineer A's explicit refusal to consent to peer review of second tower plans following notification
terminatedby: Not resolved in the presented facts — state persists
textreferences: Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review
triggeringevent: Engineer A's notification that Owner has retained Engineer B to conduct peer review
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.948322
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Refuses Peer Review Consent
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.962354
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Refuses Peer Review Consent (Action 5) → Peer Review Process Blocked (Event 6)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.962765
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A Reviewed Engineer Consent Refusal Override Instance Second Tower
type: ReviewedEngineerConsentRefusalOverrideConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer A refused to consent to peer review of second tower plans after being notified; BER analysis establishes that such refusal does not constitute an absolute veto over a legitimately ordered peer review
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.93
constrainedentity: Engineer A
constraintclass: Reviewed Engineer Consent Refusal Override Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer A's refusal to consent to the peer review of the second tower designs did not extinguish the Owner's right to commission the review or Engineer B's authority to proceed, particularly given the confirmed significant design errors in the first tower work that created independent public safety justification for the review.
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:18:02.960809+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:18:02.960809+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics; BER Case analysis; BER Case 93-3 precedent
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Following Owner's notification to Engineer A of the planned peer review
textreferences: If Engineer A refused to consent and cooperate, Owner would be then face with three options: to move forward with the peer review conducted under difficult and limiting circumstances, to move forward without the peer review . . . or to move forward without Engineer A.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.958823
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A's independent external review (BER Case 18-10) before Engineer A's firm invitation to design-build joint venture (BER Case 18-10)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.962992
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer A's review of Engineer B's work (BER Case 96-8) before Engineer A's determination of potential safety code violations (BER Case 96-8)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.963034
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer B BER 96-8 Reviewed Firm
type: OriginalDesignEngineerSubjecttoPeerReview
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Engineering firm', 'ethical_status': 'Subject of peer review with potential safety code violations identified', 'case_reference': 'BER Case 96-8'}
caseinvolvement: In BER Case 96-8 precedent, Engineer B's firm was the subject of peer review by Engineer A under an organized program; Engineer A identified potential safety code violations in Engineer B's work, triggering collegial discussion obligations and potential authority reporting.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:09:54.483622+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:09:54.483622+00:00
importance: medium
relationships: {'type': 'potential_code_violation', 'target': 'State and Local Safety Code Requirements'}
relationships: {'type': 'reviewed_by', 'target': 'Engineer A BER 96-8 Peer Review Program Participant'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Original Design Engineer Subject to Peer Review
sourcetext: Engineer A was assigned to review the design work of Engineer B's firm on several projects
textreferences: Engineer A determined that Engineer B's work may be in violation of state and local safety code requirements, placing the public health, safety, and welfare at risk
textreferences: Engineer A was assigned to review the design work of Engineer B's firm on several projects
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.950733
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer B Collegial Concern Response Peer Review Instance
type: CollegialConcernResponseCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Collegial Concern Response Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B demonstrated the capability to approach the peer review engagement with professional respect for Engineer A's interests — insisting on proper notification — while maintaining commitment to the legitimate quality assurance purpose of the review.
casecontext: Engineer B balanced the Owner's legitimate commission with professional obligations of fairness and transparency toward Engineer A as a fellow licensed professional.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's insistence on notifying Engineer A before proceeding, reflecting professional respect for the reviewed engineer's right to know about the review of their work.
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:13:41.187409+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:13:41.187409+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A.
textreferences: Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.961646
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer B Confidentiality-Bound Peer Reviewer
type: PeerReviewEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Independent peer review', 'ethical_status': 'Acted correctly in declining assignment without disclosure to original engineer'}
caseinvolvement: Peer reviewer retained by Owner to review Engineer A's design work; correctly declined the assignment when initially instructed not to disclose the review to Engineer A; proceeded after Owner agreed to notify Engineer A; bears obligations of thoroughness, objectivity, and public safety reporting.
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:09:54.483622+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:09:54.483622+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Owner'}
relationships: {'type': 'collegial_obligation_toward', 'target': 'Engineer A Original Designer Peer Review Subject'}
relationships: {'type': 'reviews_work_of', 'target': 'Engineer A Original Designer Peer Review Subject'}
rolecategory: professional_peer
roleclass: Peer Review Engineer
sourcetext: 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
textreferences: 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
textreferences: Owner reluctantly agreed to advise Engineer A of the planned peer review
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.950147
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer B Covert Peer Review Prohibition Instance
type: CovertPeerReviewProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Owner instructed Engineer B to conduct a covert peer review of Engineer A's second tower designs without Engineer A's knowledge; Engineer B objected on professional grounds
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.95
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Covert Peer Review Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was prohibited from proceeding with the peer review of Engineer A's second tower plans without first notifying Engineer A, regardless of Owner's instruction to conduct the review covertly, arising from NSPE Code Section III.7.a and professional courtesy norms.
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:13:22.677259+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:13:22.677259+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7.a; Professional peer review conduct norms
sourcetext: Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know.
temporalscope: From the moment Engineer B was retained by Owner through the initiation of any peer review activity
textreferences: Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A.
textreferences: Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.958691
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer B Covert Review Instruction Resistance Capability Instance
type: CovertReviewInstructionResistanceCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Covert Review Instruction Resistance Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B demonstrated the capability to recognize and resist the Owner's instruction to conduct a covert peer review of Engineer A's work without Engineer A's knowledge, correctly identifying this as ethically impermissible.
casecontext: Owner instructed Engineer B to conduct peer review without notifying Engineer A; Engineer B objected and declined to proceed under those conditions.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.91
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's refusal to proceed with the peer review under the Owner's initial covert instruction, and insistence on proper notification before commencing.
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:13:41.187409+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:13:41.187409+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know.
textreferences: Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A.
textreferences: Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.960274
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer B Faithful Agent Boundary Recognition Peer Review Instance
type: FaithfulAgentBoundaryRecognitioninPeerReviewContextCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Faithful Agent Boundary Recognition in Peer Review Context Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B demonstrated the capability to recognize that faithful agent obligations to the Owner did not require compliance with the ethically impermissible instruction to conduct a covert review, while remaining willing to proceed with the legitimate peer review engagement once proper notification conditions were met.
casecontext: Engineer B navigated the tension between faithful agent duties to Owner and professional ethics obligations to Engineer A regarding notification.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's objection to the covert instruction while remaining engaged with the Owner's legitimate peer review commission, and willingness to proceed after notification.
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:13:41.187409+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:13:41.187409+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A.
textreferences: Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A.
textreferences: When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.960405
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer B Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Instance
type: FaithfulAgentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Engineer B was retained by Owner to conduct peer review; Engineer B balanced the duty to serve the Owner's legitimate quality assurance interest with the collegial obligation to notify Engineer A before proceeding.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:12:24.459752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:12:24.459752+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Faithful Agent Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to act as a faithful agent to the Owner by accepting and proceeding with the peer review engagement, while recognizing that faithful agency does not extend to conducting the review through procedurally unfair means — specifically, conducting a covert review without Engineer A's knowledge — and that the faithful agent duty is bounded by collegial and ethical obligations to the reviewed engineer.
sourcetext: Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B.
temporalscope: Throughout the peer review engagement, from initial retention through resolution of the notification dispute
textreferences: Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A.
textreferences: Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B.
textreferences: When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A, Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.954244
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer B Faithful Agent Within Ethical Limits Constraint Instance
type: ConflictofInterestAvoidanceConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Owner's instruction to conduct a covert review placed Engineer B in a position where faithful compliance with client instruction would require violation of professional ethical obligations to Engineer A
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.8
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint)
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained in fulfilling the faithful agent obligation to Owner by the independent ethical obligation to notify Engineer A before conducting the peer review, establishing that faithful agency to the client does not extend to violating professional ethical obligations owed to third-party engineers whose work is being reviewed.
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:13:22.677259+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:13:22.677259+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7.a; Faithful agent provisions bounded by ethical limits
sourcetext: Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know.
temporalscope: Throughout Engineer B's engagement with Owner for the peer review
textreferences: Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A.
textreferences: Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.955510
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer B Notification Obligation Activated
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.962489
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer B Objection to Covert Review
type: CompetingDutiesState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From receipt of Owner's covert instruction through Owner's consent to notify Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Owner
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:08:47.187342+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:08:47.187342+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A
stateclass: Competing Duties State
subject: Engineer B's professional position between client instruction and professional courtesy obligation
terminatedby: Owner's reluctant consent to notify Engineer A
textreferences: Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A
triggeringevent: Owner's instruction to conduct peer review without notifying Engineer A
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.948154
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer B Peer Review Confidentiality Agreement Cooperation Facilitation
type: PeerReviewConfidentialityAgreementCooperationObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: The discussion notes that confidentiality agreements in peer review contexts encourage the firm being reviewed to cooperate fully, build trust, and support a collegial atmosphere; Engineer B's peer review of Engineer A's second tower designs was conducted in this context.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:16:44.479624+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:16:44.479624+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Peer Review Confidentiality Agreement Cooperation Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B, upon accepting the peer review assignment after Owner agreed to notify Engineer A, was obligated to conduct the review in a manner that honored any confidentiality protections established to encourage Engineer A's cooperation, recognizing that such protections serve the collegial and trust-building functions of the peer review system.
sourcetext: Such confidentiality agreements encourage the firm being reviewed to cooperate fully, build trust, and support a collegial atmosphere.
temporalscope: Throughout the conduct of the peer review of the second tower designs
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Such confidentiality agreements encourage the firm being reviewed to cooperate fully, build trust, and support a collegial atmosphere.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.958558
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer B Peer Review Confidentiality Cooperation Facilitation Instance
type: PeerReviewConfidentialityFrameworkNavigationCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Review Confidentiality Framework Navigation Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B demonstrated the capability to operate within the confidentiality framework of the peer review engagement — conducting the review in a manner that respects confidentiality obligations while fulfilling the peer review's technical and safety objectives — once Owner agreed to notify Engineer A
casecontext: Engineer B accepted the peer review assignment after Owner agreed to notify Engineer A, demonstrating ability to operate within appropriate confidentiality frameworks
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.82
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's acceptance of the peer review engagement after the notification condition was met, proceeding within the confidentiality framework while fulfilling professional obligations
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:18:24.895246+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:18:24.895246+00:00
importance: medium
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: Such confidentiality agreements encourage the firm being reviewed to cooperate fully, build trust, and support a collegial atmosphere.
textreferences: Owner reluctantly agreed to advise Engineer A of the planned peer review.
textreferences: Such confidentiality agreements encourage the firm being reviewed to cooperate fully, build trust, and support a collegial atmosphere.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.962031
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer B Peer Review Consent Refusal Recognition Capability Instance
type: PeerReviewConsentRefusalRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Review Consent Refusal Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer A's refusal to consent to the peer review of the second tower designs represents a failure to exercise the capability to recognize that such refusal constitutes ethically impermissible obstruction of a legitimate quality assurance process, particularly given known prior design errors
casecontext: Engineer A refused consent to peer review of second tower designs; Board concluded this was unethical given known first tower defects and multiple converging professional obligations
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.88
demonstratedthrough: Engineer A's initial refusal to consent to and cooperate with Engineer B's peer review, which the Board found to be unethical
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:18:24.895246+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:18:24.895246+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer A
proficiencylevel: advanced
sourcetext: If Engineer A refused to consent and cooperate, Owner would be then face with three options: to move forward with the peer review conducted under difficult and limiting circumstances, to move forward without the peer review . . . or to move forward without Engineer A.
textreferences: If Engineer A refused to consent and cooperate, Owner would be then face with three options: to move forward with the peer review conducted under difficult and limiting circumstances, to move forward without the peer review . . . or to move forward without Engineer A.
textreferences: Under the facts, the Board concludes that it would be unethical for Engineer A to fail to cooperate.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.961521
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer B Peer Review Engineer
type: PeerReviewEngineer
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'license': 'Professional Engineer', 'specialty': 'Independent design review', 'conduct': 'Ethically objected to client instruction to conduct review without notifying Engineer A'}
caseinvolvement: Retained by Owner to conduct peer review of Engineer A's designs for the second tower; objected to conducting the review without notifying Engineer A; upheld professional obligation to notify original engineer despite client instruction to the contrary
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:08:34.110559+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:08:34.110559+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client', 'target': 'Owner'}
relationships: {'type': 'peer_reviewer_of', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'reviewing', 'target': 'Tower Two designs'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Peer Review Engineer
sourcetext: retains Engineer B
textreferences: Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A
textreferences: retains Engineer B
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.947707
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer B Peer Review Notification Obligation Instance
type: PeerReviewNotificationandConsentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Owner retained Engineer B to conduct a peer review of Engineer A's second tower designs after significant errors were discovered in the first tower; Owner initially instructed Engineer B to conduct the review without Engineer A's knowledge.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:12:24.459752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:12:24.459752+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Peer Review Notification and Consent Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to refrain from conducting the peer review of Engineer A's second tower designs without first notifying Engineer A that the peer review was being conducted, and to object to the Owner's instruction to conduct the review covertly.
sourcetext: Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know.
temporalscope: Upon receiving the peer review assignment and before commencing any review work
textreferences: Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A.
textreferences: Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.947567
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer B Peer Review Notification Protocol Capability Instance
type: PeerReviewNotificationProtocolCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Review Notification Protocol Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B demonstrated the capability to recognize that professional ethics required notification of Engineer A before conducting the peer review, and to object to the Owner's instruction to proceed covertly.
casecontext: Engineer B was retained by Owner to conduct peer review of Engineer A's second tower designs and correctly identified the notification obligation before proceeding.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.92
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's objection to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A, despite Owner's instruction to proceed without notification.
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:13:41.187409+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:13:41.187409+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know.
textreferences: Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A.
textreferences: Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.960147
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer B Peer Review Notification Refusal Covert Assignment
type: PeerReviewNotificationandConsentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Owner retained Engineer B to conduct a peer review of Engineer A's second tower designs following discovery of significant design errors in the first tower; Owner initially instructed Engineer B not to disclose the peer review to Engineer A.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:16:44.479624+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:16:44.479624+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Peer Review Notification and Consent Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to decline the peer review assignment when instructed not to disclose the review to Engineer A, and to condition acceptance of the assignment on prior notification of Engineer A, consistent with NSPE III.7.a.
sourcetext: 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.'
temporalscope: Upon receipt of the peer review assignment with the instruction not to disclose to Engineer A
textreferences: Accordingly, 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.
textreferences: 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.'
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.957517
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer B Public Safety Peer Review Obligation Capability Instance
type: PublicWelfareParamountcyRecognitionCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Public Welfare Paramountcy Recognition Capability
capabilitystatement: Engineer B demonstrated the capability to recognize that proceeding with the peer review — once proper notification conditions were met — was required by public safety obligations, given that the second tower designs may contain errors similar to those found in the first tower.
casecontext: Engineer B recognized that public safety obligations required proceeding with peer review once procedural conditions were satisfied, despite Engineer A's objection.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Engineer B's willingness to proceed with the peer review after notification, recognizing the public safety imperative of independent review of potentially deficient designs for a structure under development.
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:13:41.187409+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:13:41.187409+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Engineer B
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A
textreferences: Engineer B was obligated to proceed with the peer review of Engineer A's second tower designs — once proper notification conditions were met — in recognition of public safety obligations
textreferences: Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower
textreferences: several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.956061
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer B Public Safety Peer Review Obligation Instance
type: SafetyObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Significant design errors were discovered in the first tower; the second tower is a mirror-image design; peer review serves a critical public safety function in identifying potential errors before construction of the second tower.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:12:24.459752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:12:24.459752+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Engineer B
obligationclass: Safety Obligation
obligationstatement: Engineer B was obligated to proceed with the peer review of Engineer A's second tower designs — once proper notification conditions were met — in recognition of the public safety interest in independent verification of design work that had already been found to contain significant errors in a related structure, and to ensure that any errors in the second tower designs were identified before construction commenced.
sourcetext: Owner is developing a site with two mirror-image towers to be built two years apart.
temporalscope: Upon resolution of the notification dispute and commencement of the peer review
textreferences: As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A.
textreferences: Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B.
textreferences: Owner is developing a site with two mirror-image towers to be built two years apart.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.954506
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer B Public Safety Peer Review Proceeding Constraint Instance
type: PublicSafetyParamountConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Confirmed design errors in first tower created public safety risk of replication in second tower; Engineer B's peer review was the primary quality assurance mechanism available to Owner
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Engineer B
constraintclass: Public Safety Paramount Constraint
constraintstatement: Engineer B was constrained by the paramount public safety obligation to proceed with the peer review of Engineer A's second tower plans once proper notification conditions were satisfied, given the confirmed significant design errors in the first tower and the risk of replication in the mirror-image second tower, prohibiting Engineer B from declining the engagement on grounds of professional courtesy alone when public safety provided independent justification for the review.
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:13:22.677259+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:13:22.677259+00:00
importance: critical
severity: critical
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section I; Public safety paramount canon
sourcetext: As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A.
temporalscope: Once Owner notified Engineer A of the peer review and the notification obligation was satisfied
textreferences: As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A.
textreferences: Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.955054
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer B Refuses Covert Review
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.962283
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer B Refuses Covert Review (Action 3) → Owner Forced Into Transparency (Event 4)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.962708
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer B's objection before owner's reluctant consent to notify Engineer A
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.962880
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Engineer_Notification_Right_Review
type: EngineerNotificationRightinReviewContexts
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.82
createdby: NSPE Board of Ethical Review and professional engineering ethics committees
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norms on Engineer's Right to Notice in Peer Review Proceedings
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:08:28.771566+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:08:28.771566+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Engineer Notification Right in Review Contexts
sourcetext: Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review
textreferences: Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review
usedby: Engineer A upon notification of the peer review; Engineer B in evaluating how to proceed after Engineer A's objection
usedincontext: Provides the professional basis for Engineer A's position upon being notified of the peer review, and for evaluating whether Engineer A's refusal to consent is professionally defensible or whether the review may proceed regardless
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.947144
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Error Acknowledgment and Corrective Disclosure Obligation Context Engineer A
type: ErrorAcknowledgmentandCorrectiveDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Peer review of second tower designs
appliedto: Significant design errors in first tower
balancingwith: Peer Review Notification and Consent Obligation
balancingwith: Professional Dignity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The discovery of significant design errors in the first tower creates a context in which Engineer A's obligation to acknowledge errors and facilitate correction extends to cooperating with the peer review of the second tower — a directly related project with mirror-image designs — rather than obstructing the quality assurance process
confidence: 0.86
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:11:24.041456+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:11:24.041456+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The error acknowledgment obligation, in the context of mirror-image towers with known design defects in the first, requires Engineer A to facilitate rather than obstruct independent review of the second tower's designs as part of the corrective process
invokedby: Engineer A Original Design Engineer
principleclass: Error Acknowledgment and Corrective Disclosure Obligation
sourcetext: As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A.
tensionresolution: The error acknowledgment obligation reinforces the non-obstruction obligation; Engineer A's refusal to consent is inconsistent with both principles
textreferences: Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
textreferences: Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower
textreferences: several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.953242
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Error Acknowledgment and Corrective Disclosure Obligation Invoked Against Engineer A
type: ErrorAcknowledgmentandCorrectiveDisclosureObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Known design defects in first tower
appliedto: Peer review of second tower designs
balancingwith: Professional Dignity
balancingwith: Reputational self-interest
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's known design defects in the first tower create an obligation to acknowledge those errors and cooperate with corrective quality assurance processes — including the peer review of the second tower — rather than refusing to engage with the review process that would identify and address potential deficiencies
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:15:28.047091+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:15:28.047091+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The error acknowledgment obligation extends beyond verbal admission to encompass active cooperation with processes designed to identify and correct the consequences of prior errors in related ongoing work
invokedby: Engineer A Original Design Engineer Subject to Peer Review
principleclass: Error Acknowledgment and Corrective Disclosure Obligation
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: Error acknowledgment obligation overrides reputational self-interest; the obligation is heightened when prior errors create ongoing public safety risk in related work
textreferences: Engineers must take responsibility for their actions, must acknowledge their errors
textreferences: The known design defects in the first tower simply makes each of those requirements more urgent.
textreferences: significant design errors were discovered during construction of the first tower
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.957365
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits Invoked By Engineer B
type: FaithfulAgentObligationWithinEthicalLimits
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Owner's covert instruction
appliedto: Owner's peer review engagement
balancingwith: Peer Review Independence and Integrity
balancingwith: Peer Review Notification and Consent Obligation
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B acted as a faithful agent to the Owner by accepting the peer review engagement and proceeding once proper notification conditions were met, while retaining the professional authority to object to the covert instruction that conflicted with ethical obligations
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:11:24.041456+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:11:24.041456+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: The faithful agent obligation required Engineer B to serve the Owner's legitimate interest in quality assurance while refusing to execute the specific instruction that violated professional ethics; the principle was correctly applied by distinguishing between the legitimate engagement and the improper instruction
invokedby: Engineer B Peer Review Engineer
principleclass: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
sourcetext: Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B.
tensionresolution: Engineer B correctly identified the boundary between faithful service (accepting the engagement) and ethical limit (refusing the covert instruction), demonstrating the proper application of the faithful agent principle
textreferences: Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A.
textreferences: Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B.
textreferences: When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A, Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.952792
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

I.1.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.213147
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

I.4.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.213192
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

I.6.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.213224
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

II.1.c.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.213254
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

III.1.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.213297
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

III.1.f.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.213332
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

III.4.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.213362
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

III.7.a.
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.213615
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Independent_Engineering_Review_Standard_Peer_Review
type: IndependentEngineeringReviewStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.85
createdby: Professional engineering societies and ethics boards
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norms Governing Independent Engineering Peer Reviews
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:08:28.771566+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:08:28.771566+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Independent Engineering Review Standard
sourcetext: Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B
textreferences: Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B
usedby: Engineer B when structuring and conducting the peer review engagement
usedincontext: Establishes the methodological and procedural standards within which Engineer B's peer review of Engineer A's second tower plans must be conducted, including scope, reporting obligations, and independence requirements
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.946865
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

NSPE-Code-ProfObligation-III-7-a
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.97
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers — Professional Obligation III.7.a
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:09:12.553574+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:09:12.553574+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: 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.'
textreferences: 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.'
usedby: BER in analyzing Engineer B's conduct and Engineer A's obligation to cooperate
usedincontext: Cited as the definitive rule prohibiting an engineer from reviewing another engineer's work for the same client without the knowledge of that engineer, or unless the engineer's connection with the work has been terminated; used to justify Engineer B's refusal and Owner's obligation to notify Engineer A
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.947859
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

NSPE_Code_of_Ethics_Peer_Review
type: ProfessionalCode
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.95
createdby: National Society of Professional Engineers
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:08:28.771566+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:08:28.771566+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Code
sourcetext: Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A
textreferences: Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A
usedby: Engineer B in deliberating whether to accept the peer review engagement under the owner's conditions
usedincontext: Provides the primary normative framework governing Engineer B's obligations when asked to conduct a covert peer review of Engineer A's work, including obligations of fairness to other engineers and duties to the public and client
version: Current
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.946738
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review Violated By Engineer A
type: Non-ObstructionofLegitimatePeerReview
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's refusal to consent
appliedto: Owner's commissioned peer review of second tower designs
balancingwith: Peer Review Notification and Consent Obligation
balancingwith: Professional Dignity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's refusal to consent to the peer review of the second tower designs — after significant design errors had already been discovered in the first tower — constitutes obstruction of a legitimately commissioned quality assurance process, prioritizing personal or reputational interests over public welfare and professional accountability
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:11:24.041456+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:11:24.041456+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Given the prior discovery of significant design errors in related work, Engineer A had a heightened professional obligation to facilitate rather than obstruct independent review; refusal to consent in these circumstances violates the principle of non-obstruction
invokedby: Engineer A Original Design Engineer
principleclass: Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review
sourcetext: Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
tensionresolution: While Engineer A had a legitimate interest in procedural fairness (notification), that interest was satisfied when Owner notified Engineer A; the subsequent refusal to consent went beyond legitimate procedural objection into improper obstruction
textreferences: As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A.
textreferences: Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
textreferences: When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A, Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.952353
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Non-Obstruction of Peer Review Invoked Against Engineer A Refusal to Cooperate
type: Non-ObstructionofLegitimatePeerReview
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's refusal to cooperate with peer review of second tower designs
balancingwith: Professional Dignity
balancingwith: Reputational self-interest of Engineer A
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's refusal to consent to and cooperate with Engineer B's peer review of the second tower designs was unethical, because professional accountability, error acknowledgment, client service, and public welfare obligations all require active cooperation with legitimate peer review, especially given known design defects in the first tower
confidence: 0.96
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:15:28.047091+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:15:28.047091+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The obligation not to obstruct peer review is reinforced and made more urgent when the engineer whose work is being reviewed has already demonstrated design deficiencies in related prior work
invokedby: Engineer B Peer Review Engineer
invokedby: Owner Development Project Client
principleclass: Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review
sourcetext: Under the facts, the Board concludes that it would be unethical for Engineer A to fail to cooperate.
tensionresolution: Public welfare, professional accountability, and client service obligations collectively override any reputational interest Engineer A might have in avoiding scrutiny of prior work
textreferences: Each of those requirements strongly indicates that Engineer A should participate fully and cooperatively in Engineer B's peer review.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: The known design defects in the first tower simply makes each of those requirements more urgent.
textreferences: Under the facts, the Board concludes that it would be unethical for Engineer A to fail to cooperate.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.953530
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Owner Consents to Notifying Engineer A
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.962318
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Owner Consents to Notifying Engineer A (Action 4) → Engineer A Notified Of Review (Event 5)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.962736
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Owner Covert Peer Review Instruction Constraint Instance
type: CovertPeerReviewProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Owner's initial instruction to Engineer B to conduct the peer review covertly was the precipitating ethical conflict in the case
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.9
constrainedentity: Owner
constraintclass: Covert Peer Review Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Owner was constrained from instructing Engineer B to conduct a peer review of Engineer A's work without notifying Engineer A, as such instruction directed Engineer B to violate professional ethical obligations arising from NSPE Code Section III.7.a.
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:13:22.677259+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:13:22.677259+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7.a; Peer Review Conduct Standard
sourcetext: Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know.
temporalscope: At the time Owner retained Engineer B and issued instructions regarding the peer review
textreferences: Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know.
textreferences: When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A...
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.954657
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Owner Covert Peer Review Instruction to Engineer B
type: CovertPeerReviewInstructionState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Owner's initial retention of Engineer B through Owner's reluctant consent to notify Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Owner
concept category: State
confidence: 0.91
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:08:47.187342+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:08:47.187342+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know
stateclass: Covert Peer Review Instruction State
subject: Owner's instruction to Engineer B regarding peer review of Engineer A's second tower plans
terminatedby: Owner's reluctant consent to notify Engineer A following Engineer B's objection
textreferences: Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A
textreferences: Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know
textreferences: When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A
triggeringevent: Owner's explicit instruction to Engineer B to conduct peer review without notifying Engineer A
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.948013
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Owner Development Project Client
type: DevelopmentProjectOwnerClient
type: NamedIndividual
attributes: {'entity_type': 'Private development owner', 'project_scope': 'Two mirror-image towers built two years apart', 'conduct': 'Initially sought to exclude Engineer A from knowledge of peer review'}
caseinvolvement: Developing a two-tower site; discovered design errors in first tower; commissioned peer review of second tower designs; initially instructed Engineer B to conduct review without notifying Engineer A; reluctantly consented to notification after Engineer B's objection
concept category: Role
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:08:34.110559+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:08:34.110559+00:00
importance: high
relationships: {'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Engineer A'}
relationships: {'type': 'client_of', 'target': 'Engineer B'}
relationships: {'type': 'project_owner', 'target': 'Two-tower development site'}
rolecategory: provider_client
roleclass: Development Project Owner Client
sourcetext: Owner is developing a site with two mirror-image towers
textreferences: Owner decides to obtain a peer review
textreferences: Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know
textreferences: Owner is developing a site with two mirror-image towers
textreferences: When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.950322
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Owner Forced Into Transparency
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.962522
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Owner Options After Engineer A Consent Refusal
type: ReviewedEngineerConsentRefusalState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Owner's notification to Engineer A through Engineer A's response
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Owner
concept category: State
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:09:58.790115+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:09:58.790115+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: If Engineer A refused to consent and cooperate, Owner would be then face with three options: to move forward with the peer review conducted under difficult and limiting circumstances, to move forward without the peer review . . . or to move forward without Engineer A.
stateclass: Reviewed Engineer Consent Refusal State
subject: Engineer A's potential refusal to consent to peer review, placing Owner in position of choosing among three difficult options
terminatedby: Engineer A agrees to cooperate, Owner proceeds without Engineer A, or Owner abandons peer review
textreferences: If Engineer A refused to consent and cooperate, Owner would be then face with three options: to move forward with the peer review conducted under difficult and limiting circumstances, to move forward without the peer review . . . or to move forward without Engineer A.
triggeringevent: Engineer A's potential explicit refusal to consent to and cooperate with peer review after notification
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.951667
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Owner Peer Review Procedural Fairness Constraint Instance
type: ProceduralConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Owner initially instructed Engineer B to conduct the review without notifying Engineer A; Engineer B's objection led Owner to reluctantly consent to notification
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.87
constrainedentity: Owner
constraintclass: Procedural Constraint
constraintstatement: Owner was constrained to ensure that the peer review of Engineer A's second tower plans was conducted through procedurally fair means — including notifying Engineer A before the review commenced — prohibiting Owner from directing Engineer B to conduct the review covertly even when Owner believed the review was legitimately necessary.
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:13:22.677259+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:13:22.677259+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7.a; Peer Review Conduct Standard; Professional courtesy norms
sourcetext: Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know.
temporalscope: From the decision to commission the peer review through the initiation of the review process
textreferences: Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know.
textreferences: When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A...
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.955346
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Owner Peer Review Procedural Fairness Design Capability Instance
type: PeerReviewProceduralFairnessDesignCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Review Procedural Fairness Design Capability
capabilitystatement: Owner initially failed to demonstrate the capability to design a procedurally fair peer review process, instructing Engineer B to conduct the review covertly, but partially corrected this by reluctantly consenting to notification when Engineer B objected.
casecontext: Owner commissioned peer review of second tower designs but initially directed Engineer B to proceed without notifying Engineer A, demonstrating insufficient understanding of procedural fairness requirements.
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.85
demonstratedthrough: Owner's initial instruction to conduct covert review, followed by reluctant consent to notification after Engineer B's objection — demonstrating partial but incomplete capability.
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:13:41.187409+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:13:41.187409+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Owner
proficiencylevel: basic
sourcetext: Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know.
textreferences: Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know.
textreferences: When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.960549
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Owner Peer Review Procedural Fairness Notification Constraint Instance
type: CovertPeerReviewProhibitionConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Owner initially instructed Engineer B to conduct review without notifying Engineer A; Owner reluctantly agreed to provide notification after Engineer B's objection, resolving the covert review instruction state
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.92
constrainedentity: Owner
constraintclass: Covert Peer Review Prohibition Constraint
constraintstatement: Owner was constrained from directing Engineer B to conduct a covert peer review of Engineer A's work without Engineer A's knowledge, and was required to notify Engineer A of the planned peer review as a precondition to the review proceeding ethically — a constraint Owner ultimately accepted after Engineer B's objection.
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:18:02.960809+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:18:02.960809+00:00
importance: high
severity: high
source: NSPE Code of Ethics Section III.7.a; BER Case analysis
sourcetext: Owner reluctantly agreed to advise Engineer A of the planned peer review.
temporalscope: Prior to commencement of peer review of Engineer A's second tower designs
textreferences: Owner reluctantly agreed to advise Engineer A of the planned peer review.
textreferences: 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.'
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.959714
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Owner Peer Review Procedural Fairness Notification Engineer A
type: PeerReviewProceduralFairnessClientObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Owner initially instructed Engineer B to conduct the peer review without disclosing it to Engineer A; Engineer B declined; Owner reluctantly agreed to advise Engineer A of the planned peer review.
compliancestatus: met
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:16:44.479624+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:16:44.479624+00:00
importance: high
obligatedparty: Owner
obligationclass: Peer Review Procedural Fairness Client Obligation
obligationstatement: Owner was obligated to notify Engineer A of the planned peer review before it commenced, and was correct to ultimately agree to do so after Engineer B declined the covert assignment, recognizing that NSPE III.7.a requires peer review to be conducted with the knowledge of the engineer whose work is under review.
sourcetext: Owner reluctantly agreed to advise Engineer A of the planned peer review.
temporalscope: Before commencement of the peer review of the second tower designs
textreferences: Owner reluctantly agreed to advise Engineer A of the planned peer review.
textreferences: 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.'
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.957906
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Owner Peer Review Procedural Fairness Notification Instance
type: PeerReviewProceduralFairnessDesignCapability
type: NamedIndividual
capabilityclass: Peer Review Procedural Fairness Design Capability
capabilitystatement: Owner demonstrated the capability to recognize and correct a procedurally deficient peer review process design after Engineer B's objection, agreeing to notify Engineer A before the review commenced
casecontext: Owner initially instructed Engineer B to conduct the review without notifying Engineer A; corrected this procedural deficiency after Engineer B's refusal
concept category: Capability
confidence: 0.87
demonstratedthrough: Owner's agreement to notify Engineer A of the planned peer review after Engineer B declined the covert assignment
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:18:24.895246+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:18:24.895246+00:00
importance: high
possessedby: Owner
proficiencylevel: intermediate
sourcetext: Owner reluctantly agreed to advise Engineer A of the planned peer review.
textreferences: Owner reluctantly agreed to advise Engineer A of the planned peer review.
textreferences: 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.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.961901
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Owner Peer Review Procedural Fairness Obligation Instance
type: PeerReviewProceduralFairnessClientObligation
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Owner initially instructed Engineer B to conduct the peer review without Engineer A's knowledge; Owner ultimately consented to notification only after Engineer B objected.
compliancestatus: partial
concept category: Obligation
confidence: 0.84
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:12:24.459752+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:12:24.459752+00:00
importance: medium
obligatedparty: Owner
obligationclass: Peer Review Procedural Fairness Client Obligation
obligationstatement: Owner was obligated to ensure that the peer review of Engineer A's second tower designs was conducted through procedurally fair means, including notifying Engineer A before the review commenced, rather than instructing Engineer B to conduct the review covertly.
sourcetext: Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know.
temporalscope: At the time of commissioning the peer review and issuing instructions to Engineer B
textreferences: Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know.
textreferences: When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A, Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.953820
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Owner Retains Engineer B Covertly
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.962249
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Owner Retains Engineer B Covertly (Action 2) → Engineer B Notification Obligation Activated (Event 3)
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.962679
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Owner Selects Post-Refusal Strategy
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Action
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.962388
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Peer-Review-Disclosure-in-Design-Build-Contracts
type: PeerReviewConfidentialityAgreement
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.82
createdby: Professional practice in design-build contracting
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
documenttitle: Peer Review Consent and Confidentiality Provisions in Design-Build Bid and Contract Documents
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:09:12.553574+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:09:12.553574+00:00
importance: medium
resourceclass: Peer Review Confidentiality Agreement
sourcetext: In many cases, 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.
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: In many cases, 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.
usedby: BER in contextualizing the professional norms surrounding peer review consent and confidentiality
usedincontext: Described as an emerging standard practice in design-build procurement whereby participation in a bid or contract constitutes implied consent to peer review, often accompanied by confidentiality obligations on the reviewer and notification rights for the reviewed engineer
version: General practice norm
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.949410
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Peer_Review_Conduct_Standard_Notification
type: PeerReviewConductStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.88
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norms Governing Notification of Engineers Subject to Peer Review
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:08:28.771566+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:08:28.771566+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Peer Review Conduct Standard
sourcetext: Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A
textreferences: Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A
textreferences: Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A
usedby: Engineer B in objecting to the owner's instruction to conduct the review without notifying Engineer A
usedincontext: Grounds Engineer B's objection to conducting a covert peer review, establishing that professional norms require the reviewed engineer to be notified before or during the peer review process
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.947021
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Peer Review Confidentiality Agreement Collegial Cooperation Constraint Instance
type: ConfidentialityConstraint
type: NamedIndividual
casecontext: Discussion of how confidentiality agreements in peer review contexts constrain disclosure while encouraging cooperation; noted as absent in the present case, creating a less structured review environment
concept category: Constraint
confidence: 0.82
constrainedentity: Peer Reviewer (general); Engineer B
constraintclass: Confidentiality Constraint
constraintstatement: Where peer review confidentiality agreements are present, the reviewing engineer is constrained to keep review results confidential while simultaneously being required to provide the reviewed engineer an opportunity to explain and defend design decisions — the confidentiality obligation operates as a structural constraint on how findings may be disclosed but does not eliminate the reviewed engineer's participatory rights.
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:18:02.960809+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:18:02.960809+00:00
importance: medium
severity: medium
source: Emerging design-build peer review practice standards; NSPE Code of Ethics
sourcetext: 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.
temporalscope: Throughout peer review process where confidentiality agreement is operative
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: However, that is not always the case and it is not the case here.
textreferences: Such confidentiality agreements encourage the firm being reviewed to cooperate fully, build trust, and support a collegial atmosphere.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.959854
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Peer Review Independence and Integrity Invoked By Engineer B
type: PeerReviewIndependenceandIntegrity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Integrity of peer review process
appliedto: Owner's instruction to conduct covert peer review
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's objection to conducting a covert peer review reflects the principle that peer review integrity requires procedural conditions — including notification of the reviewed engineer — that enable the review to function as genuine independent quality assurance rather than a covert evaluation that could be dismissed or challenged as procedurally deficient
confidence: 0.88
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:11:24.041456+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:11:24.041456+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: A covert peer review conducted without the reviewed engineer's knowledge would lack the procedural legitimacy necessary for its findings to serve as reliable quality assurance, undermining the very purpose for which the review was commissioned
invokedby: Engineer B Peer Review Engineer
principleclass: Peer Review Independence and Integrity
sourcetext: Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A.
tensionresolution: Engineer B correctly identified that the client's covert instruction would compromise review integrity and objected, ultimately securing the client's reluctant consent to notification
textreferences: Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A.
textreferences: Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know.
textreferences: When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A, Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.952643
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Peer Review Independence and Integrity Invoked By Owner Instruction Conflict
type: PeerReviewIndependenceandIntegrity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Owner's initial instruction to conduct covert peer review
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Owner's initial instruction to Engineer B to conduct the peer review without disclosing it to Engineer A would have compromised the integrity and effectiveness of the review, as covert review without the original designer's knowledge and cooperation undermines the review's ability to serve its quality assurance function
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:15:28.047091+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:15:28.047091+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Peer review integrity requires not only reviewer independence but also procedural conditions — including notification of the reviewed engineer — that enable the review to function effectively as a quality assurance mechanism
invokedby: Engineer B Confidentiality-Bound Peer Reviewer
principleclass: Peer Review Independence and Integrity
sourcetext: it will likely be a fruitless exercise to attempt to conduct a peer review without Engineer A's cooperation
tensionresolution: Engineer B correctly declined the compromised assignment; Owner ultimately agreed to notify Engineer A, restoring the conditions for an effective and ethically sound review
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: Owner reluctantly agreed to advise Engineer A of the planned peer review.
textreferences: it will likely be a fruitless exercise to attempt to conduct a peer review without Engineer A's cooperation
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.957055
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Peer Review Notification Obligation Invoked By Engineer B Declining Covert Assignment
type: PeerReviewNotificationandConsentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's design work for the second tower
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B correctly declined to conduct a peer review of Engineer A's work when instructed not to disclose the review to Engineer A, because NSPE Professional Obligation III.7.a. requires that engineers not review another engineer's work for the same client without the knowledge of that engineer
confidence: 0.95
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:15:28.047091+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:15:28.047091+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The notification obligation is non-waivable by client instruction; the client cannot direct a peer reviewer to conduct a covert review as a condition of the engagement
invokedby: Engineer B Peer Review Engineer
principleclass: Peer Review Notification and Consent Obligation
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: Engineer B's refusal to accept the covert assignment was ethically correct; client loyalty does not extend to participating in ethically prohibited covert review arrangements
textreferences: Accordingly, 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.
textreferences: 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.'
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.953379
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Peer Review Notification and Consent Obligation Invoked By Engineer B
type: PeerReviewNotificationandConsentObligation
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's design work for second tower
appliedto: Owner's instruction to conduct covert peer review
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B refused to proceed with the peer review assignment until Engineer A was notified, recognizing that conducting a covert review of a professional peer's work violates the procedural fairness and professional dignity owed to the reviewed engineer
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:11:24.041456+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:11:24.041456+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: The notification obligation required Engineer B to make notification of Engineer A a precondition of accepting the engagement, and to object when the client attempted to circumvent this requirement
invokedby: Engineer B Peer Review Engineer
principleclass: Peer Review Notification and Consent Obligation
sourcetext: Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A.
tensionresolution: Engineer B correctly treated notification as a non-negotiable precondition, subordinating client preference for covert review to the professional obligation of procedural fairness
textreferences: Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A.
textreferences: Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know.
textreferences: When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A, Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.952186
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Peer Review Process Blocked
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.962589
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Peer Review Without Confidentiality Agreement
type: PeerReviewConfidentialityAgreementAbsentState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From Owner's commissioning of peer review through conclusion of the review process
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Owner
concept category: State
confidence: 0.82
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:09:58.790115+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:09:58.790115+00:00
importance: medium
sourcetext: 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
stateclass: Peer Review Confidentiality Agreement Absent State
subject: The peer review of Engineer A's work commissioned by Owner
terminatedby: Conclusion of peer review or establishment of confidentiality protections
textreferences: 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
textreferences: However, that is not always the case and it is not the case here.
triggeringevent: Owner's decision to commission peer review without establishing a confidentiality agreement protecting Engineer A's design information
urgencylevel: medium
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.950896
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Post-Review Conflict of Interest Avoidance Invoked In BER 18-10 Precedent
type: Post-ReviewConflictofInterestAvoidanceinDesign-BuildProcurement
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Design-build RFP for project previously reviewed by Engineer A
balancingwith: Fairness in Professional Competition
balancingwith: Incumbent Advantage Prohibition in Public Procurement
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: In BER Case 18-10, Engineer A's firm sought to participate in a design-build joint venture for a project Engineer A had previously reviewed as lead engineer on an independent external review; the BER concluded this was permissible only with agency approval and compliance with applicable conflict-of-interest laws
confidence: 0.85
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:15:28.047091+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:15:28.047091+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Prior review involvement does not automatically disqualify an engineer from subsequent procurement participation, but the conflict must be cured through agency approval and regulatory compliance rather than simply ignored
invokedby: Engineer A BER 18-10 Post-Review Design-Build Participant
principleclass: Post-Review Conflict of Interest Avoidance in Design-Build Procurement
sourcetext: the Board concluded that, so long as the agency approves and the work complies with applicable state laws and regulations regarding conflicts of interest, it would not be unethical for Engineer A's firm to participate in a design-build joint venture submitting a proposal for the project.
tensionresolution: Agency approval and regulatory compliance are sufficient conditions to permit participation; without them, participation would be ethically impermissible
textreferences: Engineer A was the lead engineer on an independent external review of an agency-prepared project.
textreferences: In Case 18-10, the Board concluded that, so long as the agency approves and the work complies with applicable state laws and regulations regarding conflicts of interest, it would not be unethical for Engineer A's firm to participate in a design-build joint venture submitting a proposal for the project.
textreferences: The review's scope was limited to clarifications and refinements, and there was no confidentiality agreement.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.956914
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Professional Accountability Invoked Against Engineer A Refusal to Acknowledge Errors
type: ProfessionalAccountability
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's refusal to cooperate with peer review
appliedto: Known design defects in first tower
balancingwith: Professional Dignity
balancingwith: Reputational self-interest
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's professional accountability obligation requires acknowledgment of design errors discovered during construction of the first tower and active cooperation with the peer review process designed to identify and address potential deficiencies in the second tower designs
confidence: 0.92
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:15:28.047091+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:15:28.047091+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Professional accountability encompasses both backward-looking acknowledgment of errors and forward-looking cooperation with corrective quality assurance processes
invokedby: Engineer A Original Design Engineer Subject to Peer Review
principleclass: Professional Accountability
sourcetext: Engineers must take responsibility for their actions, must acknowledge their errors
tensionresolution: Accountability obligation overrides reputational concerns; engineers cannot selectively accept credit for successes while refusing accountability for failures
textreferences: 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.
textreferences: The known design defects in the first tower simply makes each of those requirements more urgent.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.956470
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Professional Accountability Violated By Engineer A Refusal
type: ProfessionalAccountability
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's design work for second tower
appliedto: Owner's quality assurance process
balancingwith: Peer Review Notification and Consent Obligation
balancingwith: Professional Dignity
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer A's refusal to consent to peer review of the second tower after significant errors were found in the first tower represents a failure of professional accountability — an unwillingness to accept legitimate scrutiny of professional work that had already demonstrated deficiencies
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:11:24.041456+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:11:24.041456+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Professional accountability in this context requires acceptance of independent review as a mechanism for quality assurance, particularly when prior work has demonstrated significant errors; refusal to consent is a form of accountability avoidance
invokedby: Engineer A Original Design Engineer
principleclass: Professional Accountability
sourcetext: Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
tensionresolution: Professional accountability obligation outweighs any personal interest in avoiding scrutiny, particularly given the prior error history
textreferences: Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
textreferences: several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.952496
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Professional Dignity Implicated By Covert Review Instruction
type: ProfessionalDignity
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's professional standing
appliedto: Peer review process design
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Public Welfare Paramount
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The Owner's instruction to conduct a covert peer review of Engineer A's work — without Engineer A's knowledge — implicates the principle of professional dignity by treating Engineer A as an object of surveillance rather than a professional peer entitled to notice and opportunity to respond
confidence: 0.83
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:11:24.041456+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:11:24.041456+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Professional dignity requires that peer review processes be conducted in ways that respect the reviewed engineer's professional standing, including notification and opportunity to respond, even when the review is legitimately commissioned by a dissatisfied client
invokedby: Owner Development Project Client
principleclass: Professional Dignity
sourcetext: Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know.
tensionresolution: Professional dignity does not grant Engineer A a veto over the review, but does require notification; Engineer B correctly identified this balance by insisting on notification while accepting the engagement
textreferences: Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A.
textreferences: Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.952932
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Professional_Responsibility_Acknowledgment_Standard_Design_Errors
type: ProfessionalResponsibilityAcknowledgmentStandard
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Resource
confidence: 0.87
createdby: Professional engineering ethics bodies
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
documenttitle: Professional Norms Governing Engineer Responsibility for Design Errors
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:08:28.771566+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:08:28.771566+00:00
importance: high
resourceclass: Professional Responsibility Acknowledgment Standard
sourcetext: several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A
textreferences: Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review
textreferences: several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A
usedby: Engineer A in assessing obligations following discovery of design errors; Owner in deciding to commission peer review
usedincontext: Provides normative grounding for evaluating Engineer A's professional obligations in light of the significant design errors discovered in the first tower, including duties to acknowledge errors and cooperate with corrective review processes
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.947269
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Public Safety Risk Second Tower Design
type: PublicSafetyatRisk
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From discovery of first tower errors through completion and verification of second tower peer review
affectedparties: Construction workers
affectedparties: Future occupants
affectedparties: Owner
affectedparties: Public
concept category: State
confidence: 0.89
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:08:47.187342+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:08:47.187342+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A
stateclass: Public Safety at Risk
subject: Potential replication of significant design errors in second tower plans given confirmed errors in first tower
terminatedby: Successful peer review confirming or correcting second tower plans
textreferences: Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower
textreferences: Several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A
triggeringevent: Discovery of significant design errors in first tower plans by Engineer A, with second tower plans by same engineer not yet independently reviewed
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.948918
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked As Basis for Mandatory Peer Review Cooperation
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's obligation to cooperate with peer review of second tower designs
balancingwith: Professional Dignity
balancingwith: Reputational self-interest
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: The paramount obligation to hold public health, welfare, and safety above personal or reputational interests requires Engineer A to cooperate fully with the peer review of the second tower designs, particularly given that known design defects in the first tower create heightened public safety risk
confidence: 0.93
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: discussion
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:15:28.047091+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:15:28.047091+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: Public welfare paramountcy is not merely a disclosure obligation but also generates affirmative cooperation obligations when quality assurance processes are directed at work affecting public safety
invokedby: Engineer A Original Design Engineer Subject to Peer Review
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: 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.
tensionresolution: Public welfare obligation overrides reputational concerns; the urgency is heightened by known prior defects
textreferences: The known design defects in the first tower simply makes each of those requirements more urgent.
textreferences: must at all times hold paramount the health, welfare, and safety of the public
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.956328
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Public Welfare Paramount Invoked By Engineer B Peer Review
type: PublicWelfareParamount
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Decision whether to proceed with covert review
appliedto: Peer review of second tower designs
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Faithful Agent Obligation Within Ethical Limits
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's insistence on notifying Engineer A before conducting the peer review reflects recognition that a covert, procedurally deficient peer review could produce unreliable quality assurance for a building project where design errors had already caused harm, thereby placing future occupants and the public at risk
confidence: 0.9
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:11:24.041456+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:11:24.041456+00:00
importance: high
interpretation: In this context, public welfare requires that the peer review process be conducted with integrity and procedural fairness so that it can genuinely serve its quality assurance function for a project with known prior design errors
invokedby: Engineer B Peer Review Engineer
principleclass: Public Welfare Paramount
sourcetext: Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A.
tensionresolution: Engineer B correctly prioritized the integrity of the peer review process — and thus public welfare — over the client's preference for a covert review, by objecting to the covert instruction
textreferences: As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A.
textreferences: Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.951994
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.217077
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.217330
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.217358
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.217402
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.217436
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.217479
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.217513
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.217560
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.217592
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.217640
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.217105
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.217133
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.217162
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.217190
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.217217
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.217245
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.217272
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

QuestionEmergence_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.217300
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Question_1
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 1
question text: Is Engineer B ethically required to make certain that Engineer A is advised of the planned peer review?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.213532
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Question_101
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 101
question text: If Owner had never voluntarily agreed to notify Engineer A, what ethical obligation would Engineer B have had to unilaterally refuse the engagement or independently ensure notification, and at what point does Engineer B's acceptance of a covert assignment itself become an ethical violation?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.213667
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Question_102
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 102
question text: Does the Owner's ability to simply terminate Engineer A as a workaround to the notification requirement create a perverse incentive that undermines the protective purpose of the peer review notification norm, and should the Board have addressed whether termination is an ethically equivalent substitute for notification?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.213720
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Question_103
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 103
question text: What affirmative obligations, if any, does Engineer A have to proactively disclose the known design errors in the first tower to the Owner and to relevant authorities, independent of and prior to any peer review being commissioned?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.213772
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Question_104
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 104
question text: Should the Board have addressed whether Engineer B has an independent obligation to report the known design defects in Engineer A's first tower work to public authorities if the Owner declines to act on them, regardless of the outcome of the peer review process?
question type: implicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.213824
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Question_2
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 2
question text: Is Engineer A ethically required to cooperate with the peer review of Engineer B?
question type: board_explicit
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.213585
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Question_201
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 201
question text: Does the Faithful Agent Obligation requiring Engineer B to serve the Owner's interests conflict with the Peer Review Notification Obligation requiring Engineer B to ensure Engineer A is informed, and how should Engineer B resolve this tension when the Owner explicitly instructs secrecy?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.213899
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Question_202
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 202
question text: Does the Confidentiality Principle protecting Engineer A's design work and client relationship conflict with the Public Welfare Paramount principle that demands peer review of potentially defective second tower plans, and under what conditions does public safety categorically override confidentiality in the peer review context?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.213962
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Question_203
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 203
question text: Does the Professional Dignity principle protecting Engineer A from covert or disrespectful review conflict with the Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review principle that bars Engineer A from blocking the review, and does the existence of prior design errors diminish or extinguish Engineer A's dignity-based objections entirely?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.214015
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Question_204
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 204
question text: Does the Error Acknowledgment and Corrective Disclosure Obligation imposed on Engineer A conflict with the Client Loyalty principle that might lead Engineer A to minimize or conceal design errors to preserve the client relationship, and how should the Board weigh these competing duties when the client has not yet demanded disclosure?
question type: principle_tension
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.214106
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Question_301
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 301
question text: From a deontological perspective, does Engineer B have an unconditional duty to notify Engineer A of the peer review regardless of the Owner's instructions, and does that duty derive from professional courtesy norms, public safety obligations, or both?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.214167
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Question_302
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 302
question text: From a consequentialist perspective, does the demonstrated risk of replicating known design errors in the second tower sufficiently justify overriding Engineer A's refusal to consent to peer review, and how should the Board weigh the harm of coerced professional review against the harm of unchecked structural defects?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.214221
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Question_303
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 303
question text: From a virtue ethics standpoint, did Engineer B demonstrate professional integrity and collegial respect by refusing the Owner's covert review instruction, and does that refusal itself constitute the kind of honorable conduct that the NSPE Code envisions when engineers navigate conflicts between client loyalty and professional courtesy?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.214272
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Question_304
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 304
question text: From a deontological perspective, does Engineer A's prior acknowledgment obligation under the Code — requiring engineers to admit their errors — independently compel cooperation with the peer review, such that refusing the review is not merely imprudent but constitutes a categorical ethical violation irrespective of outcomes?
question type: theoretical
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.214327
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Question_401
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 401
question text: If Engineer B had complied with the Owner's initial instruction and conducted the peer review covertly without notifying Engineer A, would Engineer B's subsequent findings have been ethically usable by the Owner, and would Engineer B have incurred professional liability for the procedural violation even if the review itself uncovered genuine safety defects?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.214396
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Question_402
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 402
question text: Had no design errors been discovered in the first tower, would the ethical calculus for overriding Engineer A's refusal to consent to peer review have been materially different, and would the Board's conclusion that Engineer A 'may not ethically object' still hold absent the public safety predicate?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.214467
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Question_403
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 403
question text: If the Owner had chosen to terminate Engineer A from the project rather than notify them of the peer review, would Engineer B's notification obligation have been fully discharged, and would that termination path have raised independent ethical concerns about using peer review as a pretext for removing an inconvenient engineer?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.214525
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Question_404
type: EthicalQuestion
type: NamedIndividual
question number: 404
question text: If Engineer A had proactively disclosed the first-tower design errors to the Owner before the peer review was commissioned, would that voluntary disclosure have altered Engineer A's ethical standing to object to the peer review of the second tower, or would the public safety imperative have independently sustained the Owner's right to commission the review regardless?
question type: counterfactual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.214578
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_1
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.217688
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_10
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.217953
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_11
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.217999
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_12
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.218030
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_13
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.218058
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_14
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.218087
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_15
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.218117
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_16
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.218148
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_17
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.218179
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_18
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.218213
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_19
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.218244
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_2
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.217720
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_20
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.218274
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_21
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.218319
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_22
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.218351
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_23
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.218381
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_24
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.218410
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_25
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.218439
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_26
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.218466
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_3
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.217750
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_4
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.217779
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_5
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.217808
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_6
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.217838
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_7
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.217867
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_8
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.217895
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

ResolutionPattern_9
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:41:07.217924
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Significant Design Errors in Engineer A First Tower Work
type: ErrorAcknowledgmentObligationState
type: NamedIndividual
activeperiod: From discovery of errors during first tower construction through remediation and peer review of second tower
affectedparties: Construction workers
affectedparties: Engineer A
affectedparties: Engineer B
affectedparties: Future occupants
affectedparties: Owner
concept category: State
confidence: 0.87
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 1
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:08:47.187342+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:08:47.187342+00:00
importance: high
sourcetext: Several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A
stateclass: Error Acknowledgment Obligation State
subject: Significant design errors discovered in Engineer A's completed plans for the first tower
terminatedby: Successful peer review and remediation of second tower plans
textreferences: Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower
textreferences: Several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A
triggeringevent: Discovery of several significant design errors in Engineer A's plans during first tower construction
urgencylevel: high
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.948474
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Tower Two Plans Implicated
type: NamedIndividual
concept category: Event
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.962455
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

Transparency Principle Invoked In Peer Review Context
type: TransparencyPrinciple
type: NamedIndividual
appliedto: Engineer A's awareness of review
appliedto: Peer review process
balancingwith: Client Loyalty
balancingwith: Confidentiality Principle
concept category: Principle
concreteexpression: Engineer B's insistence on notifying Engineer A reflects the transparency principle — the peer review process should be conducted openly with respect to the engineer whose work is being reviewed, enabling trust in the process and allowing the reviewed engineer to understand and respond to the evaluation of their professional work
confidence: 0.84
discoveredincase: 15
discoveredinpass: 2
discoveredinsection: facts
firstdiscoveredat: 2026-02-25T02:11:24.041456+00:00
firstdiscoveredincase: 15
generatedattime: 2026-02-25T02:11:24.041456+00:00
importance: medium
interpretation: Transparency in the peer review context requires that the reviewed engineer be aware that their work is under independent evaluation, so that the process is not conducted as a covert investigation but as a professional quality assurance mechanism
invokedby: Engineer B Peer Review Engineer
principleclass: Transparency Principle
sourcetext: Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A.
tensionresolution: Transparency toward the reviewed engineer was correctly prioritized over the client's preference for covert evaluation
textreferences: Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A.
textreferences: Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know.
wasattributedto: Case 15 Extraction
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.953092
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

construction of first tower before construction of second tower
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.962823
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

design errors in first tower during construction of first tower
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.962964
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

discovery of significant design errors in first tower before owner's decision to obtain peer review of second tower plans
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.962793
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

owner's consent to notify Engineer A before Engineer A's refusal to consent to peer review
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.962908
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

owner's instruction to Engineer B to conduct secret peer review before Engineer B's objection to conducting review without notifying Engineer A
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.962851
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction

peer review of second tower plans before construction of second tower
type: NamedIndividual
generated at time: 2026-02-25T02:24:52.962936
was generated by: ProEthica Case 15 Extraction