Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 90-6 (1990) · Use Of Cadd System
Professional obligations conflict, and the board applies no fixed rule for which one wins.
Each resolution is recorded as three edges:
competesWith (the tension),
prevailsOver (the obligation the board allowed to win in this case), and
defeasibleUnder (the situation under which the yielding obligation gives way).
The same tension is then traced across comparable cases, where its resolution shifts with context.
Hover any obligation or state to see its definition; click to open it in OntServe.
How this case resolved it
No obligation was overridden in this case: the board resolved the apparent tension without defeat, as recorded below.
Resolved without defeat
The board resolved the apparent tension here by setting a duty's boundary (specification) or by finding no genuine conflict on the facts (dissolution), rather than by allowing one obligation to prevail over another.
specification
Analytical conclusion 1: The Board resolved the tension between Responsible Charge...
Faced with the infeasibility of exhaustive review in high-volume CADD production, the board resolved the tension by treating meaningful direction and control as satisfying responsible charge, signaling that as automation increases, the professional standard shifts from verifying content to verifying process and supervision.
What the board concluded
- It was ethical for Engineer A, a registered professional engineer to sign and seal documents he prepared using a CADD system.
- It was ethical for Engineer B, a registered professional engineer, to sign and seal documents which are the work of others using a CADD system working under his direction and control.