Step 4: Synthesis Review
Case 15: Independence of Peer Reviewer
Full Entity Graph
Loading...Entity Types
Synthesis Reasoning Flow
Shows how NSPE provisions inform questions and conclusions - the board's reasoning chainNode Types & Relationships
→ Question answered by Conclusion
→ Provision applies to Entity
NSPE Code Provisions Referenced
View ExtractionI.1. I.1.
Full Text:
Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
Applies To:
I.4. I.4.
Full Text:
Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
Applies To:
I.6. I.6.
Full Text:
Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
Applies To:
II.1.c. II.1.c.
Full Text:
Engineers shall not reveal facts, data, or information without the prior consent of the client or employer except as authorized or required by law or this Code.
Applies To:
III.1.a. III.1.a.
Full Text:
Engineers shall acknowledge their errors and shall not distort or alter the facts.
Applies To:
III.1.f. III.1.f.
Full Text:
Engineers shall treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness and without discrimination.
Applies To:
III.4. III.4.
Full Text:
Engineers shall not disclose, without consent, confidential information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer, or public body on which they serve.
Applies To:
III.7.a. III.7.a.
Full Text:
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.
Relevant Case Excerpts:
"[93-3 discussed a situation in which the Owner refused to advise the engineer of the planned peer review.] While Professional Obligation III.7.a."
Confidence: 85.0%
Applies To:
Questions & Conclusions
View ExtractionQuestion 1 Board Question
Is Engineer B ethically required to make certain that Engineer A is advised of the planned peer review?
Engineer B is ethically required to make certain that Engineer A is advised of the planned peer review.
Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer B must notify Engineer A, the notification requirement establishes a fundamental procedural safeguard that protects professional autonomy while enabling quality assurance. The Board's conclusion implicitly recognizes that peer review without notification violates the collaborative nature of professional engineering practice, where engineers have both the right to defend their work and the obligation to learn from review processes.
Question 2 Board Question
Is Engineer A ethically required to cooperate with the peer review of Engineer B?
Question 3 Implicit
What are Engineer A's obligations to disclose the design errors discovered in the first tower to relevant authorities or the public?
Regarding Engineer A's disclosure obligations for the first tower design errors (Q101), Engineer A has a paramount ethical duty under I.1 to ensure public safety by disclosing the EngineerA_DesignErrors_FirstTower to relevant authorities. The discovery of 'several significant design errors' creates an immediate safety imperative that supersedes client confidentiality concerns, particularly when Engineer A refuses to cooperate with corrective measures through peer review.
Question 4 Implicit
Does the Owner have an ethical obligation to ensure the first tower's design defects are corrected before proceeding with the second tower?
Question 5 Implicit
Should Engineer B's peer review scope include evaluation of Engineer A's competence to continue on the project?
Question 6 Principle Tension
How should Engineer B balance Transparency_PeerReview_EngineerB against Confidentiality_PeerReview_Discussion when the Owner initially requested secrecy?
The case reveals a hierarchical resolution of principle tensions where PublicWelfare_PeerReview_Discussion ultimately supersedes both Professional_Autonomy_EngineerA and Confidentiality_PeerReview_Discussion. While Engineer A retains procedural rights (notification), these rights cannot be exercised to obstruct safety-critical quality assurance when known design defects exist. The Board's emphasis on transparency requirements demonstrates that professional autonomy operates within, not above, public safety imperatives.
Question 7 Principle Tension
Does Professional_Autonomy_EngineerA conflict with PublicWelfare_PeerReview_Discussion when Engineer A refuses to cooperate despite known design defects?
The case reveals a hierarchical resolution of principle tensions where PublicWelfare_PeerReview_Discussion ultimately supersedes both Professional_Autonomy_EngineerA and Confidentiality_PeerReview_Discussion. While Engineer A retains procedural rights (notification), these rights cannot be exercised to obstruct safety-critical quality assurance when known design defects exist. The Board's emphasis on transparency requirements demonstrates that professional autonomy operates within, not above, public safety imperatives.
Question 8 Principle Tension
How does Quality_Assurance_Owner tension with Integrity_Accountability_Discussion when the Owner seeks to bypass Engineer A's involvement?
The interaction between Quality_Assurance_Owner and Integrity_Accountability_Discussion creates a framework where owners have legitimate interests in quality assurance but cannot circumvent professional accountability mechanisms. Engineer B's insistence on notification demonstrates that quality assurance must operate through transparent professional channels rather than covert arrangements that undermine professional integrity and peer accountability.
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill their categorical duty under EngineerA_CompetenceObligation_001 by refusing to acknowledge and address the design errors?
From a deontological perspective (Q301), Engineer A failed their categorical duty under EngineerA_CompetenceObligation_001 by refusing to acknowledge design errors and obstructing corrective peer review. The categorical imperative requires engineers to act according to principles that could be universal laws - Engineer A's refusal to cooperate with quality assurance after known errors violates the fundamental duty of professional competence and accountability that sustains public trust in engineering.
From a consequentialist perspective, does the potential harm prevented by EngineerB_PeerReview_SecondTower justify overriding Engineer A's objections?
From a virtue ethics perspective, does Engineer B demonstrate professional integrity by exercising EngineerB_ProfessionalTransparency_Capability despite client pressure?
Question 12 Counterfactual
Would the ethical obligations change if Engineer A had proactively disclosed the design errors and requested peer review before the Owner discovered them?
Question 13 Counterfactual
What if Engineer B had declined the peer review assignment entirely due to the Owner_CovertReviewRequest_EngineerB constraint?
Question 14 Counterfactual
How would the analysis change if the State_Local_Safety_Code_Requirements mandated peer review for projects with known design defects?
Additional Conclusions (No Direct Question Link)
The Board's focus on notification requirements reveals a critical gap in addressing Engineer A's accountability for the known design defects in the first tower. While the Board establishes procedural requirements for peer review, it does not address Engineer A's continuing ethical obligations regarding the EngineerA_KnownDesignDefect_FirstTower state, which creates ongoing public safety risks that extend beyond the immediate peer review question.
Cites: I.1. III.1.a.Rich Analysis Results
View ExtractionCausal-Normative Links 5
Seek Peer Review Services
- Owner_PeerReviewConsent_001
- EngineerB_QualityAssurance_001
Request Secret Peer Review
- Peer Review Transparency Obligation
- Peer Review Consent Obligation
- Peer Review Notification Obligation
- Owner_NotifyEngineerA
Refuse Secret Review
- Peer Review Transparency Obligation
- Peer Review Consent Obligation
- EngineerB_PeerReviewTransparency_001
- EngineerB_DeclineUnethicalReview
Agree to Notify Engineer
- Peer Review Notification Obligation
- Peer Review Transparency Obligation
- Owner_NotifyEngineerA
Refuse Peer Review Consent
- Professional_Autonomy_EngineerA
- Peer Review Cooperation Obligation
- EngineerA_CooperateWithReview
Question Emergence 14
Triggering Events
- Design Errors Discovery
- Peer Review Impasse
Triggering Actions
- Seek Peer Review Services
- Request Secret Peer Review
Competing Warrants
- Peer Review Transparency Obligation Peer Review Consent Obligation
- Peer Review Notification Obligation EngineerB_QualityAssurance_001
Triggering Events
- Design Errors Discovery
- Peer Review Impasse
Triggering Actions
- Seek Peer Review Services
- Request Secret Peer Review
- Refuse Secret Review
- Agree to Notify Engineer
- Refuse Peer Review Consent
Competing Warrants
- Peer Review Cooperation Obligation Peer Review Consent Obligation
- Peer Review Cooperation Obligation Peer Review Transparency Obligation
Triggering Events
- Design Errors Discovery
Triggering Actions
- Seek Peer Review Services
- Request Secret Peer Review
- Refuse Secret Review
- Refuse Peer Review Consent
Competing Warrants
- EngineerA_PublicSafetyInReview Peer Review Transparency Obligation
- EngineerA_AcknowledgeErrors Peer Review Consent Obligation
Triggering Events
- Design Errors Discovery
Triggering Actions
- Seek Peer Review Services
- Request Secret Peer Review
Competing Warrants
- Owner_PeerReviewConsent_001 Peer Review Notification Obligation
- EngineerA_PublicSafetyInReview EngineerA_CompetenceObligation_001
Triggering Events
- Design Errors Discovery
- Peer Review Impasse
Triggering Actions
- Seek Peer Review Services
- Request Secret Peer Review
- Refuse Secret Review
Competing Warrants
- Peer Review Transparency Obligation EngineerB_QualityAssurance_001
- Peer Review Consent Obligation EngineerA_PublicSafetyInReview
Triggering Events
- Design Errors Discovery
- Request Secret Peer Review
Triggering Actions
- Seek Peer Review Services
- Agree to Notify Engineer
Competing Warrants
- Peer Review Transparency Obligation Peer Review Notification Obligation
Triggering Events
- Design Errors Discovery
- Peer Review Impasse
Triggering Actions
- Refuse Peer Review Consent
Competing Warrants
- Peer Review Cooperation Obligation Peer Review Consent Obligation
- EngineerA_PublicSafetyInReview EngineerA_CooperateWithReview
Triggering Events
- Design Errors Discovery
- Peer Review Impasse
Triggering Actions
- Request Secret Peer Review
- Refuse Peer Review Consent
Competing Warrants
- EngineerB_QualityAssurance_001 Peer Review Transparency Obligation
- Owner_PeerReviewConsent_001 Peer Review Notification Obligation
Triggering Events
- Design Errors Discovery
- Peer Review Impasse
Triggering Actions
- Refuse Peer Review Consent
Competing Warrants
- EngineerA_CompetenceObligation_001 Peer Review Cooperation Obligation
- EngineerA_AcknowledgeErrors Peer Review Consent Obligation
Triggering Events
- Design Errors Discovery
- Peer Review Impasse
- Refuse Peer Review Consent
Triggering Actions
- Request Secret Peer Review
- Refuse Secret Review
Competing Warrants
- Peer Review Consent Obligation EngineerB_QualityAssurance_001
- Peer Review Transparency Obligation EngineerA_PublicSafetyInReview
Triggering Events
- Design Errors Discovery
- Peer Review Impasse
Triggering Actions
- Request Secret Peer Review
- Refuse Secret Review
Competing Warrants
- Peer Review Transparency Obligation Peer Review Consent Obligation
- EngineerB_PeerReviewTransparency_001 EngineerB_DeclineUnethicalReview
Triggering Events
- Design Errors Discovery
Triggering Actions
- Seek Peer Review Services
- Request Secret Peer Review
Competing Warrants
- EngineerA_AcknowledgeErrors EngineerA_CompetenceObligation_001
- Peer Review Transparency Obligation Peer Review Consent Obligation
Triggering Events
- Request Secret Peer Review
Triggering Actions
- Seek Peer Review Services
Competing Warrants
- EngineerB_DeclineUnethicalReview EngineerB_QualityAssurance_001
- Peer Review Transparency Obligation Peer Review Notification Obligation
Triggering Events
- Design Errors Discovery
Triggering Actions
- Seek Peer Review Services
- Request Secret Peer Review
- Refuse Secret Review
- Refuse Peer Review Consent
Competing Warrants
- Peer Review Consent Obligation EngineerA_PublicSafetyInReview
- Peer Review Transparency Obligation EngineerB_QualityAssurance_001
Resolution Patterns 7
Determinative Principles
- Professional transparency
- Procedural fairness in peer review
- Professional courtesy
Determinative Facts
- Owner requested covert peer review
- Engineer B was asked to review Engineer A's work without notification
- Peer review involves evaluation of another professional's work
Determinative Principles
- Professional autonomy
- Collaborative professional practice
- Quality assurance transparency
- Right to defend one's work
Determinative Facts
- Peer review is inherently collaborative
- Engineers need opportunity to defend their work
- Quality assurance requires transparent processes
Determinative Principles
- Public safety paramount duty
- Professional accountability
- Ongoing safety obligations
Determinative Facts
- Known design defects exist in first tower
- Engineer A aware of defects
- Public safety risk continues unaddressed
Determinative Principles
- Public safety paramount
- Disclosure obligations for safety
- Safety supersedes confidentiality
Determinative Facts
- Several significant design errors discovered
- Engineer A refuses to cooperate with corrective measures
- Public safety at immediate risk
Determinative Principles
- Categorical duty of competence
- Professional accountability
- Universal professional obligations
- Public trust in engineering
Determinative Facts
- Engineer A refused to acknowledge design errors
- Engineer A obstructed corrective peer review
- Known errors exist requiring professional response
Determinative Principles
- Hierarchical principle resolution
- Public welfare supremacy
- Limited professional autonomy
- Safety-critical quality assurance
Determinative Facts
- Known design defects create safety risks
- Engineer A attempting to obstruct quality assurance
- Public safety at stake
Determinative Principles
- Legitimate owner quality assurance interests
- Professional accountability mechanisms
- Transparent professional channels
- Professional integrity in quality assurance
Determinative Facts
- Owner has legitimate quality concerns
- Owner initially requested covert review
- Engineer B insisted on transparent process
Decision Points
View ExtractionShould Engineer A fulfill their obligation to consent to and cooperate with peer review given the circumstances?
- Consent to and cooperate with peer review
- Refuse or resist peer review
Engineer A should consent to and cooperate with peer review
Because Peer Review Consent and Cooperation Obligation requires this action
Engineer A should NOT consent to and cooperate with peer review
Because competing professional interests may be affected
Engineer A should refuse or resist peer review
Because this promotes Professional Judgment
Engineer A should NOT refuse or resist peer review
Because competing professional interests may be affected
Should Engineer A fulfill their competence obligation given the circumstances of the peer review?
- Acknowledge competence limitations and seek assistance
- Proceed without acknowledging limitations
Engineer A should acknowledge competence limitations and seek assistance
Because Competence Obligation requires this action
Engineer A should NOT acknowledge competence limitations and seek assistance
Because appropriate delegation may better serve this situation
Engineer A should proceed without acknowledging limitations
Because this promotes Professional Judgment
Engineer A should NOT proceed without acknowledging limitations
Because appropriate delegation may better serve this situation
Should the Owner fulfill their obligation to consent to peer review given the circumstances?
- Consent to peer review
- Refuse peer review
Owner should consent to peer review
Because Peer Review Consent Obligation requires this action
Owner should NOT consent to peer review
Because competing professional interests may be affected
Owner should refuse peer review
Because this promotes Professional Judgment
Owner should NOT refuse peer review
Because competing professional interests may be affected
Should Engineer B fulfill their quality assurance obligation and decline unethical review practices?
- Conduct thorough, ethical review
- Accept compromised review conditions
Engineer B should conduct thorough, ethical review
Because Quality Assurance and Ethical Review Obligation requires this action
Engineer B should NOT conduct thorough, ethical review
Because competing professional interests may be affected
Engineer B should accept compromised review conditions
Because this promotes Professional Judgment
Engineer B should NOT accept compromised review conditions
Because competing professional interests may be affected
Should Engineer A fulfill their obligation to ensure public safety considerations are properly addressed in the peer review?
- Ensure public safety is properly addressed in review
- Subordinate safety concerns to other considerations
Engineer A should ensure public safety is properly addressed in review
Because Public Safety in Review Obligation requires this action
Engineer A should NOT ensure public safety is properly addressed in review
Because this may reduce operational efficiency
Engineer A should adopt the Subordinate safety concerns to other considerations
Because this promotes Professional Judgment
Engineer A should NOT adopt the Subordinate safety concerns to other considerations
Because this may reduce operational efficiency
Case Narrative
Phase 4 narrative construction results for Case 15
Opening Context
You are Engineer A, a practicing professional whose recent design work has come under scrutiny following the discovery of a significant technical error. As questions arise about your competence and decision-making process, you find yourself navigating the delicate balance between seeking external validation through peer review while managing colleagues' objections to this approach. The situation demands careful consideration of professional obligations, transparency, and the potential consequences of your next steps.
Characters (3)
A practicing engineer whose work is subject to peer review, likely facing questions about their technical competence or design decisions that require external validation.
- Seeks to maintain professional credibility and ensure their engineering work meets industry standards while potentially being defensive about their competence being questioned.
A peer engineer conducting or participating in the review of Engineer A's work, responsible for providing transparent and honest technical assessment.
- Aims to uphold professional standards and provide objective technical evaluation while maintaining collegial relationships and avoiding potential conflicts of interest.
The client or project owner who has commissioned engineering work and must decide whether to consent to or require peer review of the engineering services.
- Seeks to ensure project quality and minimize liability while balancing the additional costs and time delays associated with peer review processes.
States (10)
Event Timeline (11)
| # | Event | Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | A serious design error is discovered in an engineering project, prompting concerns about public safety and professional responsibility. The situation creates tension between the need for thorough review and the desire to handle the matter discreetly. | state |
| 2 | Recognizing the gravity of the design flaws, stakeholders decide to seek an independent peer review to properly assess the technical issues. This step demonstrates a commitment to professional standards and due diligence in addressing potential safety concerns. | action |
| 3 | A request is made to conduct the peer review in secret, without informing the original design engineer of the evaluation. This approach raises ethical questions about transparency and professional courtesy within the engineering community. | action |
| 4 | The reviewing engineer declines to participate in a secretive review process, citing professional ethics and standards. This refusal highlights the importance of transparency and fair treatment of fellow engineers in professional practice. | action |
| 5 | A compromise is reached where the reviewing engineer agrees to proceed only if the original design engineer is notified of the review. This decision balances the need for evaluation with respect for professional courtesy and ethical standards. | action |
| 6 | The original design engineer refuses to consent to the peer review process, creating a significant obstacle to resolving the technical concerns. This refusal complicates efforts to address the design errors through standard professional channels. | action |
| 7 | The design errors are formally identified and documented, confirming the initial safety and technical concerns. This discovery validates the need for corrective action and raises questions about professional responsibility and public welfare. | automatic |
| 8 | The peer review process reaches a deadlock due to conflicting positions on how to proceed ethically and professionally. This impasse forces all parties to consider alternative approaches while balancing competing ethical obligations and professional standards. | automatic |
| 9 | Engineer B must be transparent in peer review findings while being constrained by confidentiality requirements, creating tension between disclosure duties and privacy protection | automatic |
| 10 | Public safety concerns may require immediate action or disclosure, but peer review processes require proper consent procedures, creating tension between urgency of safety and procedural requirements | automatic |
| 11 | Engineer B is ethically required to make certain that Engineer A is advised of the planned peer review. | outcome |
Sequential action-event relationships. See Analysis tab for action-obligation links.
- Seek Peer Review Services Request Secret Peer Review
- Request Secret Peer Review Refuse Secret Review
- Refuse Secret Review Agree to Notify Engineer
- Agree to Notify Engineer Refuse Peer Review Consent
- Refuse Peer Review Consent Design Errors Discovery
Key Takeaways
- Procedural transparency in peer review processes is fundamental to maintaining professional integrity, even when it may complicate the review itself.
- The right to informed consent in professional peer review cannot be bypassed even when public safety concerns create urgency for immediate action.
- Professional cooperation duties must be balanced against individual autonomy rights, with proper notification serving as the minimum ethical threshold.