{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/15#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/15#Action_Seek_Peer_Review_Services",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Continue with Engineer A despite errors",
    "Terminate Engineer A and hire new engineer",
    "Require Engineer A to self-review with additional oversight"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Owner seeks to prevent similar costly design errors in the second tower after discovering significant problems in the first tower construction",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Risk repeating same errors",
    "Legal complications and project delays",
    "May not catch all issues without independent perspective"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Demonstrates the importance of quality assurance and the right to seek independent professional review when safety concerns arise",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Due diligence and risk management vs potential damage to existing professional relationship",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "inciting_incident",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Public safety, financial losses, professional liability, and potential structural failures in the second tower",
  "proeth:description": "Owner decides to retain Engineer B to conduct peer review of Engineer A\u0027s plans for the second tower after discovering design errors in the first tower.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Potential conflict with Engineer A"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Due diligence",
    "Risk management"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Public safety",
    "Quality assurance"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Owner (Client)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Engineer relationship vs Safety",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Safety concerns outweighed relationship preservation"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Prevent design errors in second tower",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Project management",
    "Risk assessment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After discovery of design errors during first tower construction",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Seek Peer Review Services"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/15#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/15#Action_Request_Secret_Peer_Review",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Immediately inform Engineer A of peer review plans",
    "Request Engineer A to participate collaboratively in the review"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Owner wants to avoid confrontation with Engineer A and potential legal complications while still ensuring design quality",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Potential conflict but maintains transparency",
    "Could improve designs through collaboration but may face resistance"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Highlights the ethical problems with secret peer reviews and the importance of transparency in professional relationships",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Practical risk management vs professional transparency and Engineer A\u0027s right to know about review of their work",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Professional trust, legal liability, and the integrity of the peer review process",
  "proeth:description": "Owner initially instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without Engineer A\u0027s knowledge or consent.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Potential ethical violations",
    "Professional relationship damage"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Efficiency",
    "Conflict avoidance"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Owner (Client)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Confidentiality vs Professional courtesy",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Initially prioritized review objectivity over transparency"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Obtain unbiased review while avoiding confrontation",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Understanding of professional ethics"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Initial engagement with Engineer B",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Professional courtesy",
    "Transparency"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": false,
  "rdfs:label": "Request Secret Peer Review"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/15#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/15#Action_Refuse_Secret_Review",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Accept secret review to secure the contract",
    "Withdraw from consideration entirely"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Engineer B upholds professional ethics requiring transparency and respect for fellow engineers\u0027 professional standing",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Violate professional ethics and potentially face disciplinary action",
    "Lose business opportunity but avoid ethical compromise"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Demonstrates the ethical obligation to refuse unethical requests even when it may cost business opportunities",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Client service and business interests vs professional integrity and collegial respect",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Professional reputation, ethical standards, and the integrity of the engineering profession",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without Engineer A\u0027s knowledge and insists on transparency.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Potential loss of work",
    "Client dissatisfaction"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Professional courtesy",
    "Transparency",
    "Collegiality"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Professional integrity",
    "Ethical practice"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer B (Reviewing Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Client wishes vs Professional ethics",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Professional ethics superseded client preferences"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Maintain professional ethics and transparency",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Ethical judgment",
    "Professional knowledge"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Upon initial engagement by Owner",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Refuse Secret Review"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/15#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/15#Action_Agree_to_Notify_Engineer",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Abandon peer review plans entirely",
    "Find different engineer willing to do secret review"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Owner balances need for design review with Engineer B\u0027s ethical requirements and desire to maintain professional relationships",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Accept higher risk of design errors",
    "Undermine professional ethics and potentially face exposure later"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Shows how ethical pressure from professionals can guide clients toward more ethical practices",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Expedient problem-solving vs transparent professional practices",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Maintaining professional relationships while ensuring adequate design review and project safety",
  "proeth:description": "Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A about the peer review after Engineer B\u0027s objection to secrecy.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s potential objection",
    "Project complications"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Transparency",
    "Professional courtesy"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Ethical compliance",
    "Professional cooperation"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Owner (Client)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Secrecy preference vs Service acquisition",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Adapted to professional requirements to secure necessary services"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "reluctant",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Proceed with peer review while maintaining Engineer B\u0027s cooperation",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Negotiation",
    "Adaptability"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After Engineer B\u0027s objection",
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Agree to Notify Engineer"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/15#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/15#Action_Refuse_Peer_Review_Consent",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Agree to peer review with conditions",
    "Propose collaborative review process",
    "Offer to conduct additional self-review"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Engineer A protects professional reputation and resists external validation of their work, possibly due to pride or fear of further error discovery",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Maintain some control over process while allowing review",
    "Potentially improve designs through cooperation",
    "May not provide independent validation Owner seeks"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Illustrates the tension between professional ego and the broader obligation to ensure safe, quality engineering work",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Professional autonomy and reputation vs public safety and quality assurance",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "climax",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Engineer A\u0027s professional standing, project safety, Owner\u0027s ability to ensure quality, and precedent for future peer reviews",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A objects to and refuses to consent to the peer review of their plans for the second tower.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Project delays",
    "Client relationship damage",
    "Safety concerns"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Self-protection",
    "Professional autonomy"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer A (Original Design Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Professional reputation vs Public safety",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Self-interest prioritized over professional responsibility and safety"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "defensive",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Prevent external review and protect professional standing",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Professional accountability",
    "Error acknowledgment"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After being notified of proposed peer review",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Professional responsibility",
    "Public safety",
    "Cooperation",
    "Accountability"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": false,
  "rdfs:label": "Refuse Peer Review Consent"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/15#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/15#Event_Design_Errors_Discovery",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": true,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "What obligations does this discovery create for all parties involved?",
    "How should the engineering profession balance protecting colleagues versus ensuring public safety?",
    "What systemic changes could prevent similar errors from going undetected?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "high",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Alarm and embarrassment for Engineer A; concern and frustration for Owner; anxiety about professional reputation and safety; urgency to prevent similar problems in second tower",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals tension between professional loyalty and public safety; demonstrates consequences of inadequate design review; highlights duty to learn from and prevent repetition of errors",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Shows how design errors can have cascading effects across multiple projects; demonstrates importance of quality control and peer review",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "crisis",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "construction_workers": "Immediate safety concerns, work disruption",
    "engineer_a": "Professional reputation damaged, competence questioned, potential liability exposure",
    "owner": "Construction delays, cost overruns, uncertainty about second tower project",
    "public": "Safety concerns for both towers, potential structural risks"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "PublicSafety_Paramount_Constraint",
    "Professional_Competence_Constraint"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/15#Action_Original_Design_Work__by_Engineer_A_",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "First tower construction compromised; second tower design validity questioned; professional competence under scrutiny",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Correct_Design_Errors",
    "Review_Related_Projects",
    "Ensure_Second_Tower_Safety",
    "Professional_Accountability"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Significant design errors by Engineer A are discovered during construction of the first tower. This discovery reveals serious flaws that could affect the mirror-image second tower.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "high",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "During construction of first tower",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "high",
  "rdfs:label": "Design Errors Discovery"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/15#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/15#Event_Peer_Review_Impasse",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "Should professional autonomy rights override safety verification needs?",
    "What alternative mechanisms could ensure design safety when peer review is refused?",
    "How can the profession balance protecting members\u0027 rights with public safety obligations?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "medium",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Frustration for Owner unable to get safety verification; professional defensiveness from Engineer A; ethical concern from Engineer B about blocked safety review",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals tension between individual professional rights and collective safety responsibilities; shows gaps in voluntary peer review systems; highlights need for mandatory safety verification mechanisms",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Demonstrates conflict between professional autonomy and safety verification; shows limitations of consent-based peer review systems",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "slow_burn",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "engineer_a": "Professional autonomy protected but reputation further damaged by appearing obstructionist",
    "engineer_b": "Ethical position validated but unable to provide needed safety service",
    "owner": "Cannot proceed with confidence on second tower, may face regulatory scrutiny",
    "public": "Safety verification blocked, potential continued exposure to design risks"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Professional_Autonomy_Respect",
    "Safety_Verification_Blocked"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/15#Action_Refuse_Peer_Review_Consent__by_Engineer_A_",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Safety verification process blocked; alternative review methods must be considered; professional relationship tensions escalated",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Find_Alternative_Safety_Verification",
    "Respect_Professional_Rights",
    "Resolve_Design_Safety_Questions"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Engineer A\u0027s refusal to consent to peer review creates a deadlock situation where the second tower\u0027s safety cannot be independently verified despite known risks from the first tower\u0027s design errors.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "high",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After Owner agrees to notify Engineer A",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "medium",
  "rdfs:label": "Peer Review Impasse"
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/15#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/15#CausalChain_308632ad",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Significant design errors by Engineer A are discovered during construction of the first tower. This leads to the Owner\u0027s decision to retain Engineer B for peer review of the second tower",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Significant design errors by Engineer A discovered during first tower construction",
      "proeth:element": "Design Errors Discovery",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Owner realizes Engineer A\u0027s work is unreliable",
      "proeth:element": "Owner Loss of Confidence",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Owner decides to retain Engineer B to review second tower plans",
      "proeth:element": "Seek Peer Review Services",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Design Errors Discovery",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the discovery of design errors in the first tower, Owner would not have sought peer review services",
  "proeth:effect": "Seek Peer Review Services",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Discovery of significant design errors in first tower",
    "Owner\u0027s awareness of the errors",
    "Existence of a second tower requiring review"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of discovered errors + Owner\u0027s loss of confidence in Engineer A + need to protect second tower project"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/15#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/15#CausalChain_862f77e1",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Owner initially instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without Engineer A\u0027s knowledge. Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without Engineer A\u0027s knowledge",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct peer review without Engineer A\u0027s knowledge",
      "proeth:element": "Request Secret Peer Review",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B objects and insists on transparency with Engineer A",
      "proeth:element": "Refuse Secret Review",
      "proeth:step": 2
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Request Secret Peer Review",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without the request for secrecy, Engineer B would not have needed to refuse and insist on transparency",
  "proeth:effect": "Refuse Secret Review",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Owner\u0027s request for secret review",
    "Engineer B\u0027s ethical awareness",
    "Professional standards requiring transparency"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer B",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Engineer B\u0027s ethical principles + professional standards requiring colleague notification"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/15#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/15#CausalChain_7b320c64",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without Engineer A\u0027s knowledge and insists on transparency. Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A after Engineer B\u0027s objection",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B insists on transparency with Engineer A",
      "proeth:element": "Refuse Secret Review",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Owner faces choice between transparency or finding another reviewer",
      "proeth:element": "Owner Pressure vs Ethics",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A",
      "proeth:element": "Agree to Notify Engineer",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Refuse Secret Review",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without Engineer B\u0027s refusal, Owner would have proceeded with secret review",
  "proeth:effect": "Agree to Notify Engineer",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer B\u0027s firm refusal to proceed secretly",
    "Owner\u0027s need for peer review to proceed",
    "Owner\u0027s willingness to compromise"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer B",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Engineer B\u0027s ethical stance + Owner\u0027s project dependency on peer review"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/15#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/15#CausalChain_27f978f9",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Owner consents to notifying Engineer A about the peer review. Engineer A objects to and refuses to consent to the peer review of their plans",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Owner consents to transparent peer review process",
      "proeth:element": "Agree to Notify Engineer",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A learns of planned peer review of second tower",
      "proeth:element": "Engineer A Notification",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A objects to and refuses consent for peer review",
      "proeth:element": "Refuse Peer Review Consent",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Agree to Notify Engineer",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "If Engineer A had not been notified, they could not have refused consent",
  "proeth:effect": "Refuse Peer Review Consent",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A being notified of peer review",
    "Engineer A\u0027s professional pride/defensiveness",
    "Engineer A\u0027s authority to refuse consent"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Notification + Engineer A\u0027s defensive reaction + legal right to refuse"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/15#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/15#CausalChain_ab0e5fff",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer A\u0027s refusal to consent to peer review creates a deadlock situation where the second tower\u0027s safety cannot be verified",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer A blocks peer review of second tower plans",
      "proeth:element": "Refuse Peer Review Consent",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Owner cannot proceed with review due to consent requirement",
      "proeth:element": "Legal Deadlock",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Second tower safety verification becomes impossible",
      "proeth:element": "Peer Review Impasse",
      "proeth:step": 3
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Refuse Peer Review Consent",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without Engineer A\u0027s refusal, peer review could proceed and verify second tower safety",
  "proeth:effect": "Peer Review Impasse",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s refusal of consent",
    "Legal/contractual requirement for Engineer A\u0027s consent",
    "No alternative review mechanism available"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Engineer A\u0027s refusal + legal consent requirement + lack of alternative verification path"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}