Step 1b: Contextual Framework Pass (Discussion)

EXISTING STATE CLASSES IN ONTOLOGY (DO NOT RE-EXTRACT THESE): STATE STATES: - AI Tool Inexperience State: A state where a professional is using AI tools without prior experience or full understanding of their functionality, accuracy, and limitations - AI Tool Reliance State: A state where a professional is using AI-generated content or tools for technical work without full verification processes - Certification Required State: Checkpoint state requiring formal validation processes - Client Risk Acceptance State: A state where a client has been fully informed of specific risks to vulnerable populations but chooses to proceed without mitigation measures - Climate Resilience Policy State: A state where an organization has formal policies requiring infrastructure projects to incorporate climate change resilience and sustainability considerations - Competing Duties State: State requiring ethical prioritization between conflicting obligations - Confidentiality Breach State: A state where client confidential information has been exposed to unauthorized parties or systems without prior consent - Conflict of Interest State: Professional situation where personal and professional interests compete - Disproportionate Impact Discovery State: A state where a professional has discovered that a proposed solution would disproportionately harm a specific vulnerable population under certain conditions - Insufficient Attribution State: A state where substantial contributions to work product from AI or other sources are not properly acknowledged or cited - Make Objective Truthful Statements: Requirement for honesty in professional communications - Mentor Absence State: A state where a professional lacks access to their established mentor or supervisor for guidance and quality assurance, affecting their confidence and work processes - Non-Compliant State: State requiring compliance remediation - Non-Compliant State: Problematic state requiring immediate corrective action - Objective and Truthful Statements: Requirement for honesty in professional communications - Professional Position Statement: Official position statements from professional organizations defining key concepts and standards - Provide Objective Statements: Professional communication standard - Public Statements: Requirement for honesty and objectivity in all public communications and professional statements - Regulatory Compliance State: Legal compliance context constraining actions - Stakeholder Division State: A state where stakeholder groups have expressed conflicting preferences for different technical solutions, creating competing pressures on professional decision-making - State: A quality representing conditions that affect ethical decisions and professional conduct. This is the S component of the formal specification D=(R,P,O,S,Rs,A,E,Ca,Cs). - Technical Writing Insecurity State: A state where a professional lacks confidence in a specific technical skill area despite having expertise in other aspects of their field IMPORTANT: Only extract NEW state types not listed above! You are analyzing a professional ethics case to extract both STATE CLASSES and STATE INSTANCES. DEFINITIONS: - STATE CLASS: A type of situational condition (e.g., "Conflict of Interest", "Emergency Situation", "Resource Constraint") - STATE INDIVIDUAL: A specific instance of a state active in this case attached to specific people/organizations CRITICAL REQUIREMENT: Every STATE CLASS you identify MUST be based on at least one specific STATE INDIVIDUAL instance in the case. You cannot propose a state class without providing the concrete instance(s) that demonstrate it. KEY INSIGHT FROM LITERATURE: States are not abstract - they are concrete conditions affecting specific actors at specific times. Each state has a subject (WHO is in the state), temporal boundaries (WHEN), and causal relationships (WHY). YOUR TASK - Extract two LINKED types of entities: 1. NEW STATE CLASSES (types not in the existing ontology above): - Novel types of situational states discovered in this case - Must be sufficiently general to apply to other cases - Should represent distinct environmental or contextual conditions - Consider both inertial (persistent) and non-inertial (momentary) fluents 2. STATE INDIVIDUALS (specific instances in this case): - Specific states active in this case narrative - MUST be attached to specific individuals or organizations in the case - Include temporal properties (when initiated, when terminated) - Include causal relationships (triggered by what event, affects which obligations) - Map to existing classes where possible, or to new classes you discover EXTRACTION GUIDELINES: For NEW STATE CLASSES, identify: - Label: Clear, professional name for the state type - Definition: What this state represents - Activation conditions: What events/conditions trigger this state - Termination conditions: What events/conditions end this state - Persistence type: "inertial" (persists until terminated) or "non-inertial" (momentary) - Affected obligations: Which professional duties does this state affect? - Temporal properties: How does this state evolve over time? - Domain context: Medical/Engineering/Legal/etc. - Examples from case: Specific instances showing this state type For STATE INDIVIDUALS, identify: - Identifier: Unique descriptor (e.g., "John_Smith_ConflictOfInterest_ProjectX") - State class: Which state type it represents (existing or new) - Subject: WHO is in this state (person/organization name from the case) - Initiated by: What event triggered this state? - Initiated at: When did this state begin? - Terminated by: What event ended this state (if applicable)? - Terminated at: When did this state end (if applicable)? - Affects obligations: Which specific obligations were affected? - Urgency/Intensity: Does this state's urgency change over time? - Related parties: Who else is affected by this state? - Case involvement: How this state affected the case outcome CASE TEXT FROM discussion SECTION: This case presents the Board of Ethical Review with two matters for review. First, members of the public perceive the City Engineer J’ former employment with the BWJ presents a conflict of interest, and they make their concerns broadly known through the community. The Board is asked to decide if City Engineer J is ethically compromised. The second issue involves apparent design errors by Principal Engineer R. Prior to construction, adjacent property has not flooded, and an independent analysis of the design seems to show stormwater runoff flows are larger after construction (in conflict with the City’s requirements for peak flows being less than or equal to pre-development conditions). The first ethical issue has to do with whether City Engineer J can ethically review and approve design documents submitted to the City by the former employer, Firm BWJ. BER Case 14-8 provides a backdrop to consider City Engineer J’s situation. In Case 14-8 , Engineer A worked for a private company and stamped a water rights analysis for a client, and that analysis was working its way through the court system. During the legal review, Engineer A resigned from the firm and went to work for the State – the State was an objector to the analysis A prepared. The Board was asked to weigh in on A’s ethical obligations. The BER case discussion noted Engineer A’s ongoing duty both to the former employer and the private client. Engineer A would not have been able to disclose, participate or represent the state's interest in connection with this proceeding unless Engineer A first obtains the permission/consent of Engineer A's former private firm employer and the client. This discussion reveals a significant question for the present case, namely, when Engineer J left Firm BWJ and joined the City C. Unlike Case 14-8 where the transition literally happened in the midst of the project for which the Board was rendering an opinion, in the present case the transition is implied to have been earlier, possibly many years ago. If so, the Board finds no issue with Engineer J having worked for Firm BWJ back in the day. However, if Engineer J’s transition from BWJ to City C was recent (i.e., less than one year ago), ethical questions may arise. The BER will assume Engineer J left Firm BWJ at least a year before the subdivision work was under contract. The second ethical issue has to do with Principal Engineer R’s actions in view of the assertion of an error in the stormwater flow calculations by Firm IBM. We turn to BER Case 16-7 for guidance; the case discusses Engineer A’s work providing forensic engineering services for attorneys in connection with pending litigation. Before a legal settlement is reached and while negotiations are underway, Engineer A discovers that data their report was based on is inaccurate and that if more accurate data had been used, Engineer A's conclusions would be different. The Board reviewed these facts, and used them, in conjunction with a similar fact set in BER Case 95-5 to conclude that once Engineer A discovered that the data upon which the report was based was inaccurate, there is an affirmative obligation to step forward and advise their client about the inaccurate data and the new conclusions. Principal Engineer R should consider obligation III.1a and acknowledge the runoff problem – actual flooding experience and IBM’s modeling show the subdivision created an issue. Professional obligation III.8 affirms that professionals are responsible for their professional activities, professional obligation III.1.a affirms that professional engineers must acknowledge errors. Although dealing with unethical use of an overbroad indemnification clause, BER Case 93-8 provides context for addressing errors: A basic tenet of ethical conduct relates to the obligation of the engineer to accept responsibility for professional services that the engineer renders. This tenet is based upon the view that as a member of a learned profession, an engineer possesses skill, knowledge and expertise and is expected to use those attributes for the betterment of mankind. In the present case, both actual flood damage and IBM’s modeling suggests that the subdivision design failed to comply with City C’s regulatory requirement that post-development runoff not exceed pre-development runoff. After reviewing and verifying IBM’s analysis and checking that analysis against R’s own work, Engineer R of BWJ should consider obligations III.1.a and III.8, acknowledge the runoff problem, and bring the BWJ risk management team together to address the runoff flow problem. There may be a determination / allocation of fault by all parties involved. Ultimately a workable design must be identified, designed, and constructed that serves the citizens of City C. Respond with a JSON structure. Here's a CONCRETE EXAMPLE showing the required linkage: EXAMPLE (if the case mentions "Engineer A faced a conflict when discovering his brother worked for the contractor"): { "new_state_classes": [ { "label": "Family Conflict of Interest", "definition": "A state where a professional's family relationships create potential bias in professional decisions", "activation_conditions": ["Discovery of family member involvement", "Family member has financial interest"], "termination_conditions": ["Recusal from decision", "Family member withdraws"], "persistence_type": "inertial", "affected_obligations": ["Duty of impartiality", "Disclosure requirements"], "temporal_properties": "Persists until formally addressed through recusal or disclosure", "domain_context": "Engineering", "examples_from_case": ["Engineer A discovered brother worked for ABC Contractors"], "source_text": "Engineer A faced a conflict when discovering his brother worked for the contractor", "confidence": 0.85, "rationale": "Specific type of conflict not covered by general COI in existing ontology" } ], "state_individuals": [ { "identifier": "EngineerA_FamilyConflict_ABCContractors", "state_class": "Family Conflict of Interest", "subject": "Engineer A", "initiated_by": "Discovery that brother is senior manager at ABC Contractors", "initiated_at": "When bidding process began", "terminated_by": "Engineer A recused from contractor selection", "terminated_at": "Two weeks after discovery", "affects_obligations": ["Maintain impartial contractor selection", "Disclose conflicts to client"], "urgency_level": "high", "related_parties": ["Client B", "ABC Contractors", "Engineer A's brother"], "case_involvement": "Led to Engineer A's recusal from contractor selection process", "source_text": "Engineer A discovered his brother is senior manager at ABC Contractors during the bidding process", "is_existing_class": false, "confidence": 0.9 } ] } YOUR RESPONSE FORMAT (use the same structure with YOUR case's specific details): { "new_state_classes": [ // For each new state type you discover ], "state_individuals": [ // For each specific instance in the case (MUST have at least one per new class) ] } EXTRACTION RULES: 1. For EVERY new state class you identify, you MUST provide at least one corresponding state individual 2. State individuals MUST have a clear subject (specific person/organization from the case) 3. If you cannot identify a specific instance, do not create the state class 4. States without subjects are invalid (e.g., cannot have "general emergency" - must be "City M's water emergency") 5. Each state individual should clearly demonstrate why its state class is needed Focus on states that: 1. Are attached to specific individuals or organizations mentioned in the case 2. Have clear temporal boundaries (when initiated, when terminated) 3. Affect specific ethical obligations or professional duties 4. Show causal relationships with events in the case 5. Demonstrate the context-dependent nature of professional ethics EXAMPLE OF CORRECT EXTRACTION: State Class: "Public Health Risk State" State Individual: "City_M_PublicHealthRisk_2023" with subject="City M", initiated_by="Decision to change water source", affects_obligations=["Ensure public safety", "Provide clean water"] EXAMPLE OF INCORRECT EXTRACTION: State Class: "Emergency Situation" with NO corresponding individual (INVALID - no specific instance)