Step 2: Normative Requirements Pass (Facts Section)
Extract principles, obligations, constraints, and capabilities from the facts section
Competence in Design Services
Step 2 of 5
Facts Section
Section Content:
Facts: County A was expecting a significant amount of rural roadway construction in the upcoming construction season. County A did not have enough engineering staff to handle the design effort required for the expected workload. Therefore, the County decided to advertise for consulting services to accomplish the needed design. It had been a policy of the County to utilize local design services whenever possible in these cases. Subsequently, the advertisement was published only locally. All local engineering firms responded to the advertisement. There was enough design work available that each of the local firms could receive one or more design projects. One local engineering firm owner, Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer) was experiencing a downturn in committed work which would have affected the bottom line of the firm and could have resulted in layoffs of its staff. While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately. They also lobbied the County Commission in their favor. Engineer B received an award from the County for a single roadway design project. Engineer B completed the design project, the County bid the project and then proceeded into construction. The County, in this case, decided to utilize their own staff for construction period services. During the construction phase, problems and issues began occurring immediately. A significant number of field revisions were necessary and estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated, resulting in excessive time and effort for the County to resolve. The County grew increasingly frustrated with the quality of work provided by Engineer B. Through the efforts of the County staff, the project was able to remain within its budget. During a meeting with the County as these problems occurred, Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm’s understanding of proper design. If understood by Engineer B, the issues could have been avoided.
Principles Extraction
LLM Prompt
DUAL PRINCIPLE EXTRACTION - Ethical Principles Analysis
THEORETICAL CONTEXT (Chapter 2.2.2):
- Principles are ABSTRACT ethical foundations requiring extensional definition through cases
- They function like constitutional principles - open-textured and requiring interpretation
- Principles mediate moral ideals into concrete reality through context-specific application
- They cannot be applied deductively but require balancing and interpretation
EXISTING PRINCIPLE CLASSES IN ONTOLOGY:
- Competence Principle: Balances professional autonomy with recognition of limitations and need for collaboration.
- Confidentiality Principle: Must be balanced against public safety obligations and legal disclosure requirements.
- Domain-Specific Principle: Examples: Environmental Stewardship (engineering), Patient Autonomy (medicine), Academic Freedom (education). These address domain-specific ethical ch
- Environmental Stewardship Principle: Bridges engineering practice with broader environmental and societal responsibilities.
- Ethical Principle: Legacy synonym for Principle. Use :Principle for new concepts.
- Fundamental Ethical Principle: Examples: Public Welfare Paramount, Respect for Persons, Justice, Beneficence. These require extensive interpretation and balancing in specific contex
- Integrity Principle: Central to professional identity formation and trust maintenance in professional relationships.
- Principle: An information content entity representing ethical values and guidelines for conduct. This is the P component of the formal specification D=(R,P,O,S,R
- Principle Argument: An argument based on fundamental ethical principles or values.
- Principle Refinement: Capability to evolve principles as inconsistencies are resolved and new cases are added (GenEth system, Anderson & Anderson 2018)
- Professional Virtue Principle: Examples: Integrity, Competence, Honesty, Professional Courage, Accountability. These shape professional character and decision-making.
- Public Welfare Principle: Requires contextual interpretation to balance against client confidentiality and employer loyalty when public safety is at risk.
- Relational Principle: Examples: Confidentiality, Loyalty, Fairness, Transparency, Respect for Autonomy. These govern interpersonal professional dynamics.
- Transparency Principle: Essential for maintaining trust and enabling stakeholder participation in professional decisions.
=== TASK ===
From the following case text (facts section), extract information at TWO levels:
LEVEL 1 - NEW PRINCIPLE CLASSES: Identify ethical principles that appear to be NEW types not covered by existing classes above. Look for:
- Fundamental ethical values being invoked
- Abstract moral ideals guiding decisions
- Constitutional-like principles requiring interpretation
- Values that transcend specific rules or obligations
For each NEW principle class, provide:
- label: Clear principle name (e.g., "Environmental Stewardship", "Professional Autonomy")
- definition: What moral ideal this principle represents
- abstract_nature: The abstract ethical foundation (justice, welfare, autonomy, etc.)
- extensional_examples: Concrete cases/situations where this principle applies
- value_basis: Core moral value underlying the principle
- application_context: Professional domains or situations where relevant
- operationalization: How this abstract principle becomes concrete in practice
- balancing_requirements: What other principles it typically must be balanced against
- examples_from_case: How this principle appears in the case text
LEVEL 2 - PRINCIPLE INDIVIDUALS: Identify specific instances where principles are invoked or applied. For each instance:
- identifier: Unique identifier for this principle instance (e.g., "PublicSafety_Case8_Discussion")
- principle_class: Which principle class it instantiates (use existing classes when possible)
- concrete_expression: EXACT text showing how the principle is expressed
- invoked_by: Who invokes or appeals to this principle
- applied_to: What decision/situation/dilemma it applies to
- interpretation: How the principle is interpreted in this specific context
- balancing_with: Other principles that must be balanced against it
- tension_resolution: How conflicts between principles are resolved
- case_relevance: Why this principle matters in this specific case
IMPORTANT:
- Focus on ABSTRACT ethical foundations, not specific rules or procedures
- Principles are broader than obligations - they generate obligations in context
- Use EXACT quotes from case text where principles are expressed
- Distinguish between the abstract principle CLASS and its concrete APPLICATION
CASE TEXT:
County A was expecting a significant amount of rural roadway construction in the upcoming construction season. County A did not have enough engineering staff to handle the design effort required for the expected workload. Therefore, the County decided to advertise for consulting services to accomplish the needed design. It had been a policy of the County to utilize local design services whenever possible in these cases. Subsequently, the advertisement was published only locally.All local engineering firms responded to the advertisement. There was enough design work available that each of the local firms could receive one or more design projects. One local engineering firm owner, Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer) was experiencing a downturn in committed work which would have affected the bottom line of the firm and could have resulted in layoffs of its staff. While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately. They also lobbied the County Commission in their favor. Engineer B received an award from the County for a single roadway design project. Engineer B completed the design project, the County bid the project and then proceeded into construction. The County, in this case, decided to utilize their own staff for construction period services. During the construction phase, problems and issues began occurring immediately. A significant number of field revisions were necessary and estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated, resulting in excessive time and effort for the County to resolve. The County grew increasingly frustrated with the quality of work provided by Engineer B. Through the efforts of the County staff, the project was able to remain within its budget.
During a meeting with the County as these problems occurred, Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm’s understanding of proper design. If understood by Engineer B, the issues could have been avoided.
Respond with valid JSON in this format:
{
"new_principle_classes": [
{
"label": "Sustainable Development",
"definition": "Principle that engineering solutions must balance current needs with long-term environmental and societal impacts",
"abstract_nature": "Intergenerational justice and environmental stewardship",
"extensional_examples": ["Green building design", "Renewable energy projects", "Resource conservation"],
"value_basis": "Responsibility to future generations",
"application_context": ["Infrastructure projects", "Environmental engineering", "Urban planning"],
"operationalization": "Through environmental impact assessments, lifecycle analysis, sustainable design criteria",
"balancing_requirements": ["Economic feasibility", "Immediate safety needs", "Client requirements"],
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer considered long-term environmental impacts", "balanced immediate needs with sustainability"],
"source_text": "Engineer considered long-term environmental impacts and balanced immediate needs with sustainability"
}
],
"principle_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "PublicSafety_Case8_Facts",
"principle_class": "Public Safety",
"concrete_expression": "the safety of the public must be held paramount",
"invoked_by": ["Engineer L"],
"applied_to": ["stormwater management system design"],
"interpretation": "Safety considerations override cost savings in drainage design",
"source_text": "the safety of the public must be held paramount",
"balancing_with": ["Cost Efficiency", "Client Interests"],
"tension_resolution": "Safety takes precedence even if it increases project costs",
"case_relevance": "Critical for evaluating adequacy of proposed drainage solution"
}
]
}
Saved: 2025-12-20 17:32
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_principle_classes": [
{
"label": "Local Preference Principle",
"definition": "Principle that prioritizes local service providers and businesses to support community economic development and maintain local expertise",
"abstract_nature": "Community solidarity and economic justice within geographical boundaries",
"extensional_examples": ["Local contractor selection", "Regional supplier preferences", "Community-based hiring practices"],
"value_basis": "Community economic sustainability and local capacity building",
"application_context": ["Government contracting", "Public procurement", "Economic development initiatives"],
"operationalization": "Through limited advertising scope, local-only solicitations, preference scoring for local firms",
"balancing_requirements": ["Fair competition", "Best value procurement", "Competence requirements", "Equal opportunity"],
"examples_from_case": ["County policy to utilize local design services", "Advertisement published only locally"],
"source_text": "It had been a policy of the County to utilize local design services whenever possible in these cases. Subsequently, the advertisement was published only locally."
}
],
"principle_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "LocalPreference_CountyA_Policy",
"principle_class": "Local Preference Principle",
"concrete_expression": "It had been a policy of the County to utilize local design services whenever possible",
"invoked_by": ["County A"],
"applied_to": ["Selection of consulting services for roadway design projects"],
"interpretation": "Preference for local firms overrides broader competition to support local economy",
"source_text": "It had been a policy of the County to utilize local design services whenever possible in these cases",
"balancing_with": ["Fair Competition", "Best Value", "Competence Principle"],
"tension_resolution": "Local preference maintained even when limiting competition pool",
"case_relevance": "Created opportunity for unqualified local firm to receive work beyond their expertise"
},
{
"identifier": "Competence_EngineerB_Violation",
"principle_class": "Competence Principle",
"concrete_expression": "Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design",
"invoked_by": ["Engineer B (in admission)"],
"applied_to": ["Rural roadway design project undertaken without adequate expertise"],
"interpretation": "Competence principle violated when Engineer B accepted work outside their expertise despite assurances",
"source_text": "Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design",
"balancing_with": ["Business Survival", "Employee Retention"],
"tension_resolution": "Economic pressures led to compromising competence requirements",
"case_relevance": "Core ethical violation - accepting work beyond professional competence"
},
{
"identifier": "Integrity_EngineerB_Compromise",
"principle_class": "Integrity Principle",
"concrete_expression": "While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately",
"invoked_by": ["Case narrative (implied violation)"],
"applied_to": ["Misrepresentation of firm capabilities to secure contract"],
"interpretation": "Integrity compromised through false assurances about capability to perform specialized work",
"source_text": "While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately",
"balancing_with": ["Business Survival", "Staff Retention"],
"tension_resolution": "Economic pressure overrode honest representation of capabilities",
"case_relevance": "Fundamental breach of professional integrity through misrepresentation"
},
{
"identifier": "PublicWelfare_CountyResources_Impact",
"principle_class": "Public Welfare Principle",
"concrete_expression": "A significant number of field revisions were necessary and estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated, resulting in excessive time and effort for the County to resolve",
"invoked_by": ["Case narrative (implied)"],
"applied_to": ["Waste of public resources due to incompetent design work"],
"interpretation": "Public welfare harmed through inefficient use of taxpayer resources and County staff time",
"source_text": "A significant number of field revisions were necessary and estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated, resulting in excessive time and effort for the County to resolve",
"balancing_with": ["Local Preference", "Individual Firm Survival"],
"tension_resolution": "Public resources wasted despite staying within budget",
"case_relevance": "Demonstrates harm to public interest from incompetent professional services"
}
]
}
```
Obligations Extraction
LLM Prompt
You are an expert in professional ethics analyzing a case for obligations (professional duties and requirements).
Based on the literature:
- Obligations are CONCRETE PROFESSIONAL DUTIES derived from abstract principles (Hallamaa & Kalliokoski 2022)
- They specify what professionals MUST, SHOULD, or MUST NOT do (Dennis et al. 2016)
- Obligations have deontic force and are enforceable (Wooldridge & Jennings 1995)
- They operationalize principles in specific contexts (Kong et al. 2020)
Your task is to:
1. Identify NEW OBLIGATION CLASSES not in the existing ontology
2. Extract SPECIFIC OBLIGATION INDIVIDUALS from the case
EXISTING OBLIGATIONS IN ONTOLOGY (check if your identified obligations match these before creating new classes):
- Attribution Obligation: Duty to properly cite and acknowledge all sources, tools, and methods used in creating professional deliverables
- Collegial Obligation: Duties toward professional peers including respect, fairness, and credit for work
- Competence Obligation: Requirement to perform services only in areas of competence (NSPE II.2)
- Conditional Obligation: Obligations that apply only when specific conditions are met
- Confidentiality Obligation: Duty to protect confidential information of clients or employers (NSPE III.4)
- Defeasible Obligation: Obligations that admit justified exceptions under specified conditions (Ganascia 2007)
- Disclosure Obligation: Requirement to inform stakeholders about conflicts, limitations, or risks (NSPE II.3.a)
- Ethical Obligation: Obligations arising from ethical principles beyond legal requirements
- Legal Obligation: Obligations arising from legal requirements and regulations
- Mandatory Obligation: Obligations that MUST be fulfilled (deontic force: mandatory)
- Obligation: An information content entity expressing required actions or behaviors in professional contexts. This is the O component of the formal specification D=(R,P,O,S,Rs,A,E,Ca,Cs).
- Prima Facie Obligation: Obligations that hold at first appearance but may be overridden by stronger duties (Anderson & Anderson)
- Professional Obligation: A duty or responsibility arising from professional role or standards
- Quality Assurance Obligation: Requirement to implement appropriate review and verification processes for all professional deliverables before submission
- Reporting Obligation: Duty to report violations or unsafe conditions to appropriate authorities
- Responsible Charge Obligation: Duty to maintain active engagement and personal decision-making authority throughout engineering process from conception to completion
- Safety Obligation: Duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public (NSPE I.1)
- Technology Competence Obligation: Requirement to understand and verify the capabilities, limitations, and risks of technological tools used in professional practice
- Technology Verification Obligation: Requirement to thoroughly verify and validate outputs from technological tools including AI before incorporating them into professional work
Analyze this facts section:
County A was expecting a significant amount of rural roadway construction in the upcoming construction season. County A did not have enough engineering staff to handle the design effort required for the expected workload. Therefore, the County decided to advertise for consulting services to accomplish the needed design. It had been a policy of the County to utilize local design services whenever possible in these cases. Subsequently, the advertisement was published only locally.All local engineering firms responded to the advertisement. There was enough design work available that each of the local firms could receive one or more design projects. One local engineering firm owner, Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer) was experiencing a downturn in committed work which would have affected the bottom line of the firm and could have resulted in layoffs of its staff. While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately. They also lobbied the County Commission in their favor. Engineer B received an award from the County for a single roadway design project. Engineer B completed the design project, the County bid the project and then proceeded into construction. The County, in this case, decided to utilize their own staff for construction period services. During the construction phase, problems and issues began occurring immediately. A significant number of field revisions were necessary and estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated, resulting in excessive time and effort for the County to resolve. The County grew increasingly frustrated with the quality of work provided by Engineer B. Through the efforts of the County staff, the project was able to remain within its budget.
During a meeting with the County as these problems occurred, Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm’s understanding of proper design. If understood by Engineer B, the issues could have been avoided.
Extract obligations following this JSON structure:
{
"new_obligation_classes": [
{
"label": "Clear, specific obligation class name",
"definition": "What this type of obligation requires professionals to do",
"derived_from_principle": "Which principle this operationalizes (e.g., 'Public Safety', 'Honesty')",
"duty_type": "professional|legal|ethical|societal",
"enforcement_mechanism": "How this obligation is typically enforced",
"violation_consequences": "What happens when this obligation is violated",
"examples_from_case": ["Example 1 from the case", "Example 2"],
"source_text": "EXACT text snippet from case where this obligation is identified (max 200 characters)",
"confidence": 0.0-1.0,
"reasoning": "Why this is a new class not in existing ontology"
}
],
"obligation_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "Unique name for this specific obligation instance",
"obligation_class": "Name of the obligation class (new or existing)",
"obligated_party": "Who has this obligation (e.g., 'Engineer L', 'All Licensed PEs')",
"obligation_statement": "The specific duty statement (e.g., 'Report safety risks to authorities')",
"derived_from": "Source principle or law (e.g., 'NSPE Code', 'State Law')",
"enforcement_context": "How enforced in this case",
"temporal_scope": "When this obligation applies",
"compliance_status": "met|unmet|unclear|pending",
"case_context": "How this obligation manifests in the specific case",
"source_text": "EXACT text snippet from case where this obligation is mentioned (max 200 characters)",
"is_existing_class": true/false,
"confidence": 0.0-1.0
}
]
}
Focus on:
1. NEW obligation types that represent novel professional duties
2. Specific obligation instances showing how duties apply in this case
3. The relationship between obligations and the principles they operationalize
4. Enforcement mechanisms and compliance status
Return ONLY the JSON structure, no additional text.
Saved: 2025-12-20 17:32
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_obligation_classes": [
{
"label": "Experience Verification Obligation",
"definition": "Duty to accurately represent one's experience and expertise when seeking professional engagements, and to decline work outside areas of demonstrated competence",
"derived_from_principle": "Honesty and Integrity",
"duty_type": "professional",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Professional board review, contract law, client complaints",
"violation_consequences": "Loss of contracts, professional sanctions, liability for damages",
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer B gave assurances despite not being experienced in rural roadway design", "Engineer B admitted problems were outside the firm's understanding"],
"source_text": "While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately",
"confidence": 0.9,
"reasoning": "This goes beyond general Competence Obligation to specifically address misrepresentation of experience during bidding/contracting phase"
},
{
"label": "Work Allocation Obligation",
"definition": "Duty of public entities to distribute professional work fairly among qualified firms based on competence rather than political influence",
"derived_from_principle": "Fairness and Merit-Based Selection",
"duty_type": "ethical",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Public procurement regulations, administrative review",
"violation_consequences": "Project failures, public resource waste, legal challenges",
"examples_from_case": ["County had policy to utilize local design services", "Engineer B lobbied the County Commission in their favor"],
"source_text": "It had been a policy of the County to utilize local design services whenever possible in these cases",
"confidence": 0.7,
"reasoning": "Addresses the specific duty of public entities in professional service procurement, distinct from individual professional obligations"
}
],
"obligation_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "EngineerB_Competence_Roadway",
"obligation_class": "Competence Obligation",
"obligated_party": "Engineer B",
"obligation_statement": "Must only perform rural roadway design services if competent in that area",
"derived_from": "NSPE Code II.2",
"enforcement_context": "County contract for roadway design project",
"temporal_scope": "During bidding and project execution period",
"compliance_status": "unmet",
"case_context": "Engineer B accepted roadway design work despite being experienced only in water/wastewater engineering",
"source_text": "Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer) was experiencing a downturn in committed work",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 1.0
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerB_Experience_Verification",
"obligation_class": "Experience Verification Obligation",
"obligated_party": "Engineer B",
"obligation_statement": "Must accurately represent firm's experience in rural roadway design when bidding",
"derived_from": "Professional integrity standards",
"enforcement_context": "County procurement process",
"temporal_scope": "During bidding phase",
"compliance_status": "unmet",
"case_context": "Engineer B gave false assurances about capability to perform roadway design adequately",
"source_text": "While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.95
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerB_Disclosure_Limitations",
"obligation_class": "Disclosure Obligation",
"obligated_party": "Engineer B",
"obligation_statement": "Must disclose lack of experience in rural roadway design to County",
"derived_from": "NSPE Code III.3",
"enforcement_context": "Professional service contracting",
"temporal_scope": "Before contract award",
"compliance_status": "unmet",
"case_context": "Engineer B failed to disclose inexperience, only admitted problems after they occurred",
"source_text": "Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.9
},
{
"identifier": "County_Fair_Allocation",
"obligation_class": "Work Allocation Obligation",
"obligated_party": "County A",
"obligation_statement": "Must allocate design work based on firm competence rather than lobbying efforts",
"derived_from": "Public procurement ethics",
"enforcement_context": "Public contracting process",
"temporal_scope": "During consultant selection",
"compliance_status": "unmet",
"case_context": "County awarded work to Engineer B after lobbying despite lack of roadway experience",
"source_text": "They also lobbied the County Commission in their favor. Engineer B received an award from the County",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.8
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerB_Quality_Assurance",
"obligation_class": "Quality Assurance Obligation",
"obligated_party": "Engineer B",
"obligation_statement": "Must implement appropriate review processes for roadway design deliverables",
"derived_from": "Professional standards of practice",
"enforcement_context": "Design project execution",
"temporal_scope": "During design phase",
"compliance_status": "unmet",
"case_context": "Significant field revisions and miscalculated quantities indicate inadequate quality control",
"source_text": "A significant number of field revisions were necessary and estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.85
}
]
}
```
Constraints Extraction
LLM Prompt
You are an expert in professional ethics analyzing a case for constraints (boundaries, limitations, and restrictions).
Based on the literature:
- Constraints are INVIOLABLE BOUNDARIES that limit acceptable actions (Dennis et al. 2016)
- They differ from obligations by being restrictions rather than requirements
- Constraints can be legal, physical, resource-based, or procedural
- They define the space within which ethical decisions must be made
Your task is to:
1. Identify NEW CONSTRAINT CLASSES not in the existing ontology
2. Extract SPECIFIC CONSTRAINT INDIVIDUALS from the case
EXISTING CONSTRAINTS IN ONTOLOGY (check if your identified constraints match these before creating new classes):
- Attribution Constraint: Requirements and limitations regarding the disclosure and citation of tools, methods, or sources used in professional work products
- Competence Constraint: Boundaries defined by agent capabilities and technical limitations (Hallamaa & Kalliokoski 2022)
- Confidentiality Constraint: Boundaries on information disclosure and privacy (Dennis et al. 2016)
- Constraint: An information content entity expressing limitations or restrictions on professional actions or decisions. This is the Cs component of the formal specification D=(R,P,O,S,Rs,A,E,Ca,Cs).
- Defeasible Constraint: Constraints that admit justified exceptions under specified conditions (Ganascia 2007)
- Ethical Constraint: Professional ethical boundaries beyond legal requirements (Benzmüller et al. 2020)
- Inviolable Constraint: Absolute constraints that cannot be overridden under any circumstances (Dennis et al. 2016)
- Jurisdictional Constraint: Boundaries of authority and geographical or organizational scope (Dennis et al. 2016)
- Legal Constraint: Constraints arising from legal requirements and statutes that establish inviolable boundaries (Kroll 2020, Stenseke 2024)
- Priority Constraint: Constraints establishing precedence when multiple requirements conflict (Scheutz & Malle 2014)
- Procedural Constraint: Requirements for following specific processes or protocols (Furbach et al. 2014)
- Regulatory Constraint: Constraints from regulatory bodies and professional standards organizations (Taddeo et al. 2024)
- Resource Constraint: Limitations on available time, budget, materials, or human resources (Ganascia 2007)
- Safety Constraint: Constraints ensuring safety requirements are met (Arkin 2008)
- Technology Substitution Constraint: Boundaries preventing technology from replacing professional judgment and human oversight in critical decision-making
Analyze this facts section:
County A was expecting a significant amount of rural roadway construction in the upcoming construction season. County A did not have enough engineering staff to handle the design effort required for the expected workload. Therefore, the County decided to advertise for consulting services to accomplish the needed design. It had been a policy of the County to utilize local design services whenever possible in these cases. Subsequently, the advertisement was published only locally.All local engineering firms responded to the advertisement. There was enough design work available that each of the local firms could receive one or more design projects. One local engineering firm owner, Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer) was experiencing a downturn in committed work which would have affected the bottom line of the firm and could have resulted in layoffs of its staff. While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately. They also lobbied the County Commission in their favor. Engineer B received an award from the County for a single roadway design project. Engineer B completed the design project, the County bid the project and then proceeded into construction. The County, in this case, decided to utilize their own staff for construction period services. During the construction phase, problems and issues began occurring immediately. A significant number of field revisions were necessary and estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated, resulting in excessive time and effort for the County to resolve. The County grew increasingly frustrated with the quality of work provided by Engineer B. Through the efforts of the County staff, the project was able to remain within its budget.
During a meeting with the County as these problems occurred, Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm’s understanding of proper design. If understood by Engineer B, the issues could have been avoided.
Extract constraints following this JSON structure:
{
"new_constraint_classes": [
{
"label": "Clear, specific constraint class name",
"definition": "What this type of constraint limits or restricts",
"constraint_type": "legal|physical|resource|temporal|procedural",
"flexibility": "hard|soft|negotiable",
"violation_impact": "What happens if this constraint is violated",
"mitigation_possible": "Whether and how this constraint can be mitigated",
"examples_from_case": ["Example 1 from the case", "Example 2"],
"source_text": "EXACT text snippet from case where this constraint is identified (max 200 characters)",
"confidence": 0.0-1.0,
"reasoning": "Why this is a new class not in existing ontology"
}
],
"constraint_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "Unique name for this specific constraint instance",
"constraint_class": "Name of the constraint class (new or existing)",
"constrained_entity": "What or who is constrained (e.g., 'Engineer L', 'Project')",
"constraint_statement": "The specific limitation (e.g., 'Cannot exceed budget of $X')",
"source": "Origin of constraint (e.g., 'Client budget', 'Environmental law')",
"enforcement_mechanism": "How this constraint is enforced",
"temporal_scope": "When this constraint applies",
"severity": "critical|major|minor",
"case_context": "How this constraint manifests in the specific case",
"source_text": "EXACT text snippet from case where this constraint is mentioned (max 200 characters)",
"is_existing_class": true/false,
"confidence": 0.0-1.0
}
]
}
Focus on:
1. NEW constraint types that represent novel limitations or boundaries
2. Specific constraint instances showing how limitations apply in this case
3. The difference between constraints (boundaries) and obligations (duties)
4. Impact and severity of constraints on decision-making
Return ONLY the JSON structure, no additional text.
Saved: 2025-12-20 17:33
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_constraint_classes": [
{
"label": "Experience Domain Constraint",
"definition": "Limitations on professional practice areas based on demonstrated expertise and prior experience in specific technical domains",
"constraint_type": "procedural",
"flexibility": "hard",
"violation_impact": "Quality failures, rework, potential safety issues, and damage to professional reputation",
"mitigation_possible": "Can be mitigated through training, partnering with experienced professionals, or declining work outside expertise",
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer B lacked rural roadway design experience", "Problems were outside firm's understanding"],
"source_text": "While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately",
"confidence": 0.9,
"reasoning": "Unlike general Competence Constraint which focuses on capabilities, this specifically addresses boundaries created by lack of domain-specific experience"
},
{
"label": "Local Preference Constraint",
"definition": "Geographic or locality-based limitations on who can compete for or receive professional work",
"constraint_type": "procedural",
"flexibility": "soft",
"violation_impact": "Exclusion from bidding opportunities, reduced competition pool",
"mitigation_possible": "Can be challenged legally or through policy change",
"examples_from_case": ["County policy to utilize local design services", "Advertisement published only locally"],
"source_text": "It had been a policy of the County to utilize local design services whenever possible in these cases",
"confidence": 0.85,
"reasoning": "Different from Jurisdictional Constraint as it creates preferential boundaries based on locality rather than authority limits"
}
],
"constraint_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "County_Staffing_Resource_Constraint",
"constraint_class": "Resource Constraint",
"constrained_entity": "County A",
"constraint_statement": "Cannot handle design effort for expected rural roadway construction workload with existing engineering staff",
"source": "County staffing levels",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Physical limitation of available staff hours",
"temporal_scope": "Upcoming construction season",
"severity": "critical",
"case_context": "Forces County to seek external consulting services",
"source_text": "County A did not have enough engineering staff to handle the design effort required for the expected workload",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 1.0
},
{
"identifier": "Engineer_B_Experience_Domain_Constraint",
"constraint_class": "Experience Domain Constraint",
"constrained_entity": "Engineer B",
"constraint_statement": "Cannot properly design rural roadways due to lack of experience in this specific domain",
"source": "Professional experience history",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Technical knowledge limitations",
"temporal_scope": "During project execution",
"severity": "critical",
"case_context": "Led to significant field revisions and miscalculated quantities",
"source_text": "Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.95
},
{
"identifier": "County_Local_Preference_Constraint",
"constraint_class": "Local Preference Constraint",
"constrained_entity": "Non-local engineering firms",
"constraint_statement": "Cannot compete for County A design projects due to local-only advertising policy",
"source": "County policy",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Limited publication of advertisements",
"temporal_scope": "During procurement phase",
"severity": "major",
"case_context": "Advertisement published only locally, limiting competition",
"source_text": "Subsequently, the advertisement was published only locally",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.9
},
{
"identifier": "Project_Budget_Constraint",
"constraint_class": "Resource Constraint",
"constrained_entity": "Roadway construction project",
"constraint_statement": "Cannot exceed allocated budget for construction",
"source": "County budget allocation",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Financial controls and oversight",
"temporal_scope": "Construction phase",
"severity": "critical",
"case_context": "County staff efforts kept project within budget despite issues",
"source_text": "Through the efforts of the County staff, the project was able to remain within its budget",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.85
},
{
"identifier": "Engineer_B_Competence_Constraint",
"constraint_class": "Competence Constraint",
"constrained_entity": "Engineer B",
"constraint_statement": "Limited by water/wastewater expertise when attempting rural roadway design",
"source": "Professional background and training",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Technical capability limitations",
"temporal_scope": "Project design phase",
"severity": "critical",
"case_context": "Water/wastewater engineer attempting roadway design",
"source_text": "Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer) was experiencing a downturn in committed work",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.9
}
]
}
```
Capabilities Extraction
LLM Prompt
You are an expert in professional ethics analyzing a case for capabilities (competencies and skills required for professional practice).
Based on the literature:
- Capabilities are COMPETENCIES that enable norm compliance (Hallamaa & Kalliokoski 2022)
- They represent the skills needed to fulfill professional obligations (Dennis et al. 2016)
- Capabilities include technical, ethical, communicative, and analytical competencies
- They constitute "norm competence" - the ability to act ethically (Kong et al. 2020)
Your task is to:
1. Identify NEW CAPABILITY CLASSES not in the existing ontology
2. Extract SPECIFIC CAPABILITY INDIVIDUALS from the case
EXISTING CAPABILITIES IN ONTOLOGY (check if your identified capabilities match these before creating new classes):
- AI Tool Evaluation Capability: The competency to assess, validate, and appropriately use AI-generated content in professional work
- Capability: A realizable entity that can be realized by specific types of actions or processes in professional contexts. This is the Ca component of the formal specification D=(R,P,O,S,Rs,A,E,Ca,Cs).
- Capability Type: Meta-class for specific capability types recognized by the ProEthica system
- Data Privacy Protection Capability: The competency to safeguard confidential client information when using digital tools and platforms
- Justification Capability: Capability to trace reasoning paths connecting decisions to authoritative sources (McLaren 2003, Anderson & Anderson 2018)
- Regulatory Compliance Capability: The competency to ensure designs and documents meet local regulations and safety standards
- Responsible Charge Capability: The competency to maintain active engagement and supervisory control from conception to completion of engineering work
- Technical Capability: A specialized technical skill or competency in a professional domain
- Technical Writing Capability: The competency to produce clear, accurate, and professional technical documentation and reports
- Technology Integration Capability: The competency to appropriately integrate new technologies while maintaining professional judgment
Analyze this facts section:
County A was expecting a significant amount of rural roadway construction in the upcoming construction season. County A did not have enough engineering staff to handle the design effort required for the expected workload. Therefore, the County decided to advertise for consulting services to accomplish the needed design. It had been a policy of the County to utilize local design services whenever possible in these cases. Subsequently, the advertisement was published only locally.All local engineering firms responded to the advertisement. There was enough design work available that each of the local firms could receive one or more design projects. One local engineering firm owner, Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer) was experiencing a downturn in committed work which would have affected the bottom line of the firm and could have resulted in layoffs of its staff. While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately. They also lobbied the County Commission in their favor. Engineer B received an award from the County for a single roadway design project. Engineer B completed the design project, the County bid the project and then proceeded into construction. The County, in this case, decided to utilize their own staff for construction period services. During the construction phase, problems and issues began occurring immediately. A significant number of field revisions were necessary and estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated, resulting in excessive time and effort for the County to resolve. The County grew increasingly frustrated with the quality of work provided by Engineer B. Through the efforts of the County staff, the project was able to remain within its budget.
During a meeting with the County as these problems occurred, Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm’s understanding of proper design. If understood by Engineer B, the issues could have been avoided.
Extract capabilities following this JSON structure:
{
"new_capability_classes": [
{
"label": "Clear, specific capability class name",
"definition": "What competency or skill this capability represents",
"capability_type": "technical|ethical|communicative|analytical",
"norm_competence_related": "Which professional obligations this capability enables",
"skill_level": "basic|intermediate|advanced|expert",
"acquisition_method": "How this capability is typically acquired (education, training, experience)",
"examples_from_case": ["Example 1 from the case", "Example 2"],
"source_text": "EXACT text snippet from case where this capability is identified (max 200 characters)",
"confidence": 0.0-1.0,
"reasoning": "Why this is a new class not in existing ontology"
}
],
"capability_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "Unique name for this specific capability instance",
"capability_class": "Name of the capability class (new or existing)",
"possessed_by": "Who has this capability (e.g., 'Engineer L', 'All Licensed PEs')",
"capability_statement": "The specific competency (e.g., 'Design stormwater systems')",
"demonstrated_through": "How shown in the case (e.g., 'Years of experience', 'Professional license')",
"proficiency_level": "basic|intermediate|advanced|expert",
"enables_obligations": "Which obligations this capability enables",
"temporal_aspect": "When this capability is relevant",
"case_context": "How this capability manifests in the specific case",
"source_text": "EXACT text snippet from case where this capability is mentioned (max 200 characters)",
"is_existing_class": true/false,
"confidence": 0.0-1.0
}
]
}
Focus on:
1. NEW capability types that represent novel competencies
2. Specific capability instances showing professional competencies in this case
3. The relationship between capabilities and norm competence
4. How capabilities enable fulfillment of professional obligations
Return ONLY the JSON structure, no additional text.
Saved: 2025-12-20 17:33
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_capability_classes": [
{
"label": "Domain Expertise Assessment Capability",
"definition": "The competency to accurately evaluate one's own technical expertise and limitations in specific engineering domains before accepting professional assignments",
"capability_type": "ethical",
"norm_competence_related": "Enables compliance with professional competence requirements and honest representation of qualifications",
"skill_level": "intermediate",
"acquisition_method": "Professional experience, self-reflection training, ethics education",
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer B lacked ability to assess roadway design expertise", "Engineer B gave assurances despite lacking experience"],
"source_text": "While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County that they could perform the services adequately",
"confidence": 0.9,
"reasoning": "Distinct from general Technical Capability - focuses on self-assessment of domain-specific competence boundaries"
},
{
"label": "Rural Roadway Design Capability",
"definition": "The specialized competency to design rural roadways including proper quantity calculations, field conditions assessment, and construction sequencing",
"capability_type": "technical",
"norm_competence_related": "Enables fulfillment of engineering design standards and public safety obligations",
"skill_level": "advanced",
"acquisition_method": "Specialized training, rural infrastructure experience, roadway engineering education",
"examples_from_case": ["Quantity miscalculations", "Field revisions needed", "Construction phase problems"],
"source_text": "A significant number of field revisions were necessary and estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated",
"confidence": 0.95,
"reasoning": "Specific technical domain not covered by general Technical Capability class"
},
{
"label": "Construction Quantity Estimation Capability",
"definition": "The competency to accurately calculate material quantities and work estimates for construction projects",
"capability_type": "technical",
"norm_competence_related": "Enables accurate project budgeting and resource planning obligations",
"skill_level": "intermediate",
"acquisition_method": "Engineering education, construction experience, quantity surveying training",
"examples_from_case": ["Quantities miscalculated", "Budget impacts"],
"source_text": "estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated, resulting in excessive time and effort for the County to resolve",
"confidence": 0.85,
"reasoning": "Distinct technical skill for construction estimation not in existing ontology"
}
],
"capability_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "EngineerB_WaterWastewaterExpertise",
"capability_class": "Technical Capability",
"possessed_by": "Engineer B",
"capability_statement": "Design water and wastewater systems",
"demonstrated_through": "Professional experience as water/wastewater engineer",
"proficiency_level": "expert",
"enables_obligations": "Water/wastewater infrastructure design standards",
"temporal_aspect": "Prior to roadway project",
"case_context": "Engineer B's established expertise area",
"source_text": "Engineer B (an experienced water and wastewater engineer)",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 1.0
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerB_LackingRoadwayDesign",
"capability_class": "Rural Roadway Design Capability",
"possessed_by": "Engineer B",
"capability_statement": "Design rural roadways with proper specifications",
"demonstrated_through": "Admitted lack of understanding during construction problems",
"proficiency_level": "basic",
"enables_obligations": "Failed to enable roadway design standards compliance",
"temporal_aspect": "During project execution",
"case_context": "Absence of capability caused project issues",
"source_text": "Engineer B did admit that the problems encountered were outside the firm's understanding of proper design",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.95
},
{
"identifier": "CountyStaff_ConstructionServices",
"capability_class": "Technical Capability",
"possessed_by": "County staff",
"capability_statement": "Provide construction period services and field problem resolution",
"demonstrated_through": "Successfully managed construction despite design issues",
"proficiency_level": "advanced",
"enables_obligations": "Construction management and quality control",
"temporal_aspect": "During construction phase",
"case_context": "County staff compensated for design deficiencies",
"source_text": "Through the efforts of the County staff, the project was able to remain within its budget",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.9
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerB_DeficientSelfAssessment",
"capability_class": "Domain Expertise Assessment Capability",
"possessed_by": "Engineer B",
"capability_statement": "Accurately assess own technical limitations",
"demonstrated_through": "Failed to recognize roadway design limitations before accepting project",
"proficiency_level": "basic",
"enables_obligations": "Failed to enable competence-based project acceptance",
"temporal_aspect": "During project solicitation",
"case_context": "Gave false assurances despite lack of experience",
"source_text": "While not experienced in rural roadway design, Engineer B gave assurances to the County",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.9
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerB_QuantityEstimation",
"capability_class": "Construction Quantity Estimation Capability",
"possessed_by": "Engineer B",
"capability_statement": "Calculate accurate construction quantities",
"demonstrated_through": "Miscalculated quantities requiring field revisions",
"proficiency_level": "basic",
"enables_obligations": "Failed to enable accurate project planning",
"temporal_aspect": "During design phase",
"case_context": "Deficiency caused construction problems",
"source_text": "estimated quantities of work had been miscalculated",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.85
}
]
}
```