Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 22-8 (2022) · Independence of Peer Reviewer
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
Featured
Engineer B Peer Review Notification
prevails over
Engineer B Confidentiality Review Scope
No State context committed for this edge.
Engineer A Safety Review Consent
prevails over
Engineer A Error Acknowledgment Cooperation
No State context committed for this edge.
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Engineer B Client Instruction Limits vs Engineer B Covert Review Refusal
What the board concluded
- Engineer B is ethically required to make certain that Engineer A is advised of the planned peer review.
Recorded violations:
Confidential Review Assignment violates Engineer B Client Instruction Limits
Peer Review Consent Refusal violates Engineer A Professional Accountability Cooperation
Peer Review Consent Refusal violates Engineer A Competence Review Disclosure