Step 1b: Contextual Framework Pass (Discussion)

EXISTING STATE CLASSES IN ONTOLOGY (DO NOT RE-EXTRACT THESE): STATE STATES: - Certification Required State: Checkpoint state requiring formal validation processes - Competing Duties State: State requiring ethical prioritization between conflicting obligations - Conflict of Interest State: Professional situation where personal and professional interests compete - Make Objective Truthful Statements: Requirement for honesty in professional communications - 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 - 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 - 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). 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: Discussion: The sustainability ethic has been identified by the United Nations as a “blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and into the future” and thus is broadly expressed in economic, social, and environmental dimensions. Sustainability considerations are far-reaching and touch all of humanity; however, the adjudicating body for this case is the NSPE Board of Ethical Review, so interpretation of the ethics of this case is specific to the NSPE Code of Ethics. This case illustrates the increasing priority and reach of sustainability principles relative to ethical decision-making of professional engineers who use their knowledge, expertise and skill to shape, design and create the built environment. This case is also about competing ethical obligations, specifically an engineer’s right to dissent in the belief that an assigned task is unethical. Further, this case engages the engineering profession’s ethical obligation to respond to complex sustainability challenges. The NSPE Canons of Ethics for Engineers trace to 1946, and for 60 years the NSPE ethics code did not mention sustainable development. In July 2007, the NSPE House of Delegates approved the addition of a sustainable development provision to the Code, Section III.2.d, which read “Engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development in order to protect the environment for future generations.” A footnote defines sustainable development: “…the challenge of meeting human needs for natural resources, industrial products, energy, food, transportation, shelter, and effective waste management while conserving and protecting environmental quality and the natural resource base essential for future development.” BER Case 05-04 , written before NSPE included sustainable development in the NSPE Code of Ethics, is fairly representative of the BER’s earlier perspective on environmental sustainability. In finding it was not unethical for Engineer A to fail to volunteer the fact that an anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution, the BER noted that “environmental considerations are often subject to varying arguments, reflecting differing considerations and interests.” The BER’s unanimous opinion was Engineer A’s ethical obligation “did not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, the information was not ‘relevant and pertinent’ [per Code section II.3.a].” The Board took the view that no unique solution existed to the ‘trade-offs’ involved in the many competing concerns about environmental dangers for particular projects, and “professional judgment was the final arbiter of the best balance between society’s needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation which may be unavoidable in filling those basic needs.” Contrast BER case 05-4 with BER Case 07-6 , the BER’s first impression case following introduction of the sustainable development provision in the NSPE Code of Ethics. The BER unanimously found it was unethical for Engineer A not to include information about a threat to a bird species in a written report about wetlands development. Moreover, under NSPE Code Section II.3.a., engineers have an obligation to be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony and include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports. Engineer A had an obligation to include information about the threat to a bird species in the written report and advise the client of its inclusion. Cases 05-4 and 07-6 reflect a shift in the BER’s perspective away from individual professional judgment as the final arbiter of the best balance between society’s needs for certain facilities and the level of environmental degradation involved in meeting those needs. While engineering designs and solutions continue to reflect professional judgment, the BER’s current perspective is toward the engineer’s judgment being increasingly informed by a broader and deeper emphasis on global sustainability considerations in environmental matters. Engineering work is not performed in a vacuum, and service to the public good is not without consideration of competing interests. In BER Case 15-12 , Engineer A was a professional engineer with JKL Engineering and this firm had a contract with the state to specify the route for a road connecting two towns. Engineer A determined that the shortest workable route would save approximately 30 minutes from what would otherwise be a two-hour trip. However, in order to build the shortest route, the state would be required to address the impact to an historic family farmhouse that existed for over 100 years on the land required for the route. Engineer A visited the farmhouse’s owner, who indicated that the family had no interest in selling the farmhouse to the state or to anyone else. Engineer A was aware that the option existed for the state to exercise eminent domain and condemn the farmhouse and allow the state to proceed with the design and construction of the new route between the two towns. It was the BER’s position that Engineer A had an ethical obligation to balance the interests of all interested and relevant parties, including the state, the two towns in question, and the owners of the historic family farmhouse. While in general the Board was of the view that the rule in favor of ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’ should prevail under circumstances such as those presented in this case—which would suggest potential condemnation proceedings—there might be alternative creative solutions to address the issue. A third ethical aspect of the present sustainability case is the engineer’s right to responsibly dissent on matters of ethical concern. This is seen in Wasser’s ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent to Cutting Edge, while simultaneously acknowledging the Code’s encouragement to adhere to the principles of sustainable development. Is Wasser’s refusal to perform the irrigation system design task the best ethical path to resolve this tension? Turning to the present case, the project’s landscape architect specified installing an irrigation system and Cutting Edge accepted work with that specification in mind. Further, Engineer Intern Wasser was assigned a design task to include provisions for a “traditional” irrigation system. Cutting Edge (and Wasser) should follow through with the task they agreed to perform. Based on the facts of the case, the community has no zoning rules, building code provisions, or other restrictions to prevent installation of an irrigation system. For this reason, the BER infers that Cutting Edge providing provisions for a traditional lawn sprinkler system would be technically and legally permissible, and not unethical. Specific to sustainability principles, such a project would lie within the space of “client choice,” similar to how a client might choose (or not) to design and construct its project per green building options that result in LEED certification. This interpretation is fully consistent with NSPE Code Section III.2.d where engineers are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development. The facts do not support an engineer’s required adherence to a supreme sustainable development ethic. What about Engineer Intern Wasser’s refusal to perform the irrigation system design task? Wasser has an ethical obligation to act as a faithful agent to his employer, while simultaneously upholding the Code’s ethical encouragement to adhere to sustainability principles. Previous discussion showed that the Code of Ethics provision to act as a faithful agent is mandatory (engineer shall act …), but adherence to sustainable development is “encouraged.” As a matter of personal conviction, Wasser can dissent and not perform the task (i.e., dissent is ethically permissible), but if Cutting Edge’s position does not align with Wasser’s view, this would create significant career issues for Wasser. Further, as noted above, broader social, economic and political considerations relative to sustainable development indicate that design and construction of a traditional lawn irrigation system is not unethical, so refusal to perform the design cannot be viewed as ethically obligatory. But is a traditional lawn irrigation system the “best” solution for this project? Can sustainability principles improve the project and enhance outcomes? The Board believes Engineer Intern Wasser could be in a unique position to meaningfully serve the client – and his company. By introducing and offering sustainable alternatives to a traditional lawn irrigation system, Wasser and Cutting Edge can harmonize code provisions I.4 and III.2.d. One approach might be “green” options that intelligently and cost-effectively achieve sustainability goals through such tools as natural resource conservation, integrated water management, and stormwater management. Perhaps the project is a suitable candidate for rainwater harvesting and reuse? The point is, given Wasser’s education, knowledge and passionate beliefs about sustainable development, he seems more likely to fulfill his ethical obligations and aspirations – not by refusing the task, but by performing the task with technical expertise, mature leadership and dedicated service to the client’s needs. Cutting Edge and Wasser can act as faithful trustees by sharing with the client sustainable options for irrigation. Should the client refuse and insist upon the traditional irrigation system – which is not illegal, Cutting Edge and Wasser must act as the client’s agent and complete the task they accepted and were assigned. As was noted, engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, but are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable devopment. It is not enough to simply look at the situation and conclude an engineer’s obligation to the client/ employer takes precedence over the sustainable development principles. This case helps to illustrate that endeavoring to integrate all code of ethics provisions when developing a solution is critical. Suggesting sustainable options for an irrigation system as a means to resolving the ethical tension presented in this case is a path the BER endorses. Furthermore, suggesting sustainable options will inform the client; refusing to perform the task, or quitting, will not. 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"], "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", "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)