Step 2: Normative Requirements Pass (Facts Section)

Extract principles, obligations, constraints, and capabilities from the facts section

Providing Incomplete, Self-Serving Advice
Step 2 of 5

Facts Section

Section Content:
Facts:
Engineer A provides construction services in the community of City B and is a licensed professional engineer in State C where City B is located.
City B is a large metropolitan area and all forms of contracting are available.
Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B.
City B’s City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project using a specific funding source.
City Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer.
Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build.
Additionally, if Construction Manager at Risk is selected by the owner, City B, the funding agency requires the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record be two distinct entities.
Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options.
Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build.
Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm’s experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects
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: Engineer A provides construction services in the community of City B and is a licensed professional engineer in State C where City B is located. City B is a large metropolitan area and all forms of contracting are available. Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B. City B’s City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project using a specific funding source. City Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer. Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build. Additionally, if Construction Manager at Risk is selected by the owner, City B, the funding agency requires the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record be two distinct entities. Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options. Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build. Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm’s experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects 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: 2025-12-21 12:29
LLM Response
```json
{
    "new_principle_classes": [
        {
            "label": "Full Disclosure Principle",
            "definition": "Principle requiring professionals to provide complete and unbiased information about all viable options, not just those that benefit them",
            "abstract_nature": "Transparency and truthfulness in professional communications",
            "extensional_examples": ["Presenting all treatment options to patients", "Disclosing all investment options to clients", "Identifying all viable project delivery methods"],
            "value_basis": "Honesty and respect for client autonomy",
            "application_context": ["Professional consulting", "Advisory services", "Project recommendations"],
            "operationalization": "Through comprehensive option analysis, unbiased presentations, disclosure of limitations",
            "balancing_requirements": ["Business interests", "Competitive advantage", "Client relationships"],
            "examples_from_case": ["Engineer A only identified two of four approved delivery methods", "Failed to mention Construction-Manager-at-Risk option"],
            "source_text": "Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options"
        },
        {
            "label": "Conflict of Interest Principle",
            "definition": "Principle requiring professionals to avoid situations where personal interests may compromise objective professional judgment",
            "abstract_nature": "Impartiality and objectivity in professional advice",
            "extensional_examples": ["Recommending services one can provide", "Advising on contracts one might bid for", "Evaluating options where one has financial interest"],
            "value_basis": "Professional objectivity and trustworthiness",
            "application_context": ["Consulting services", "Advisory roles", "Professional recommendations"],
            "operationalization": "Through disclosure of interests, recusal from decisions, independent review",
            "balancing_requirements": ["Business development", "Professional expertise", "Client service"],
            "examples_from_case": ["Engineer A recommended method they could provide", "Provided their firm's experience with recommended method"],
            "source_text": "Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build. Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects"
        }
    ],
    "principle_individuals": [
        {
            "identifier": "Transparency_CityB_Recommendation",
            "principle_class": "Transparency Principle",
            "concrete_expression": "Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options",
            "invoked_by": ["Engineer A"],
            "applied_to": ["Project delivery method recommendation"],
            "interpretation": "Selective transparency - disclosing only options favorable to Engineer A's capabilities",
            "source_text": "Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options",
            "balancing_with": ["Business interests", "Professional competence"],
            "tension_resolution": "Engineer A prioritized business opportunity over full disclosure",
            "case_relevance": "Central to evaluating whether Engineer A acted ethically in advisory capacity"
        },
        {
            "identifier": "Competence_CityB_Services",
            "principle_class": "Competence Principle",
            "concrete_expression": "Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods",
            "invoked_by": ["Case narrator"],
            "applied_to": ["Engineer A's service capabilities"],
            "interpretation": "Engineer A has competence in specific delivery methods but may lack objectivity when recommending them",
            "source_text": "Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods",
            "balancing_with": ["Objectivity", "Full disclosure"],
            "tension_resolution": "Competence to perform services doesn't justify biased recommendations",
            "case_relevance": "Establishes Engineer A's potential conflict between competence and objectivity"
        },
        {
            "identifier": "PublicWelfare_WastewaterProject",
            "principle_class": "Public Welfare Principle",
            "concrete_expression": "wastewater system improvements project using a specific funding source",
            "invoked_by": ["City B"],
            "applied_to": ["Infrastructure project selection"],
            "interpretation": "Public infrastructure project requires consideration of community welfare in delivery method selection",
            "source_text": "wastewater system improvements project using a specific funding source",
            "balancing_with": ["Cost efficiency", "Project timeline", "Contractor interests"],
            "tension_resolution": "Best delivery method should serve public interest, not contractor preferences",
            "case_relevance": "Highlights that recommendation should prioritize public benefit over private gain"
        }
    ]
}
```
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: Engineer A provides construction services in the community of City B and is a licensed professional engineer in State C where City B is located. City B is a large metropolitan area and all forms of contracting are available. Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B. City B’s City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project using a specific funding source. City Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer. Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build. Additionally, if Construction Manager at Risk is selected by the owner, City B, the funding agency requires the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record be two distinct entities. Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options. Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build. Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm’s experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects 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: 2025-12-21 12:29
LLM Response
```json
{
  "new_obligation_classes": [
    {
      "label": "Full Disclosure of Options Obligation",
      "definition": "Duty to present all available and viable options to clients without selective omission based on self-interest",
      "derived_from_principle": "Honesty and Integrity",
      "duty_type": "professional",
      "enforcement_mechanism": "Professional board review, client complaints, peer review",
      "violation_consequences": "Loss of client trust, professional sanctions, potential liability for damages",
      "examples_from_case": ["Engineer A omitted two viable delivery methods from recommendation"],
      "source_text": "Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options",
      "confidence": 0.9,
      "reasoning": "This goes beyond general disclosure obligations to specifically require presenting all viable options, not covered by existing Disclosure Obligation class"
    },
    {
      "label": "Conflict of Interest Management Obligation",
      "definition": "Duty to avoid or properly manage situations where personal interests may influence professional recommendations",
      "derived_from_principle": "Objectivity and Impartiality",
      "duty_type": "ethical",
      "enforcement_mechanism": "Ethics board review, professional licensing board sanctions",
      "violation_consequences": "Professional censure, license suspension, legal liability",
      "examples_from_case": ["Engineer A recommended method they could provide services under while omitting others"],
      "source_text": "Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods",
      "confidence": 0.85,
      "reasoning": "Distinct from general disclosure - specifically addresses managing conflicts when making recommendations"
    }
  ],
  "obligation_individuals": [
    {
      "identifier": "EngineerA_FullOptionsDisclosure_CityB",
      "obligation_class": "Full Disclosure of Options Obligation",
      "obligated_party": "Engineer A",
      "obligation_statement": "Must present all four approved project delivery methods to City B Administrator",
      "derived_from": "Professional integrity standards",
      "enforcement_context": "Professional board review if complaint filed",
      "temporal_scope": "When providing recommendation to City B",
      "compliance_status": "unmet",
      "case_context": "Engineer A omitted Construction-Manager-at-Risk and Fixed-Price-Design-Build from viable options",
      "source_text": "only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options",
      "is_existing_class": false,
      "confidence": 0.95
    },
    {
      "identifier": "EngineerA_ConflictManagement_CityB",
      "obligation_class": "Conflict of Interest Management Obligation",
      "obligated_party": "Engineer A",
      "obligation_statement": "Must avoid or disclose potential conflict when recommending delivery method they can profit from",
      "derived_from": "NSPE Code of Ethics",
      "enforcement_context": "Ethics review by professional board",
      "temporal_scope": "During recommendation process",
      "compliance_status": "unmet",
      "case_context": "Engineer A recommended Progressive-Design-Build which they could provide services under",
      "source_text": "Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build. Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm's experience",
      "is_existing_class": false,
      "confidence": 0.9
    },
    {
      "identifier": "EngineerA_Disclosure_SelfInterest",
      "obligation_class": "Disclosure Obligation",
      "obligated_party": "Engineer A",
      "obligation_statement": "Must disclose to City B their capability to provide services under certain delivery methods",
      "derived_from": "NSPE III.1",
      "enforcement_context": "Professional standards enforcement",
      "temporal_scope": "Before or during recommendation",
      "compliance_status": "unclear",
      "case_context": "No indication Engineer A disclosed their interest in Progressive-Design-Build to City B",
      "source_text": "Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk",
      "is_existing_class": true,
      "confidence": 0.85
    },
    {
      "identifier": "EngineerA_Competence_Recommendation",
      "obligation_class": "Competence Obligation",
      "obligated_party": "Engineer A",
      "obligation_statement": "Must only provide recommendations in areas of competence",
      "derived_from": "NSPE II.2",
      "enforcement_context": "Professional licensing board",
      "temporal_scope": "When providing professional recommendations",
      "compliance_status": "met",
      "case_context": "Engineer A is licensed PE in State C and qualified in construction services",
      "source_text": "Engineer A provides construction services in the community of City B and is a licensed professional engineer in State C",
      "is_existing_class": true,
      "confidence": 0.8
    }
  ]
}
```
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: Engineer A provides construction services in the community of City B and is a licensed professional engineer in State C where City B is located. City B is a large metropolitan area and all forms of contracting are available. Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B. City B’s City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project using a specific funding source. City Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer. Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build. Additionally, if Construction Manager at Risk is selected by the owner, City B, the funding agency requires the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record be two distinct entities. Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options. Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build. Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm’s experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects 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: 2025-12-21 12:30
LLM Response
```json
{
  "new_constraint_classes": [
    {
      "label": "Funding Source Constraint",
      "definition": "Limitations imposed by specific funding sources on allowable project delivery methods, procurement processes, or contractual arrangements",
      "constraint_type": "procedural",
      "flexibility": "hard",
      "violation_impact": "Loss of funding eligibility, project rejection, or requirement to return funds",
      "mitigation_possible": "Only through selecting alternative funding sources with different requirements",
      "examples_from_case": ["Four approved project delivery methods under the funding source", "Requirement for distinct entities in CM-at-Risk"],
      "source_text": "Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build",
      "confidence": 0.9,
      "reasoning": "This represents funding-specific limitations not covered by existing Legal, Regulatory, or Procedural constraints - it's a hybrid that specifically ties allowable methods to funding eligibility"
    },
    {
      "label": "Entity Separation Constraint",
      "definition": "Requirements that certain roles or functions must be performed by distinct, independent entities to prevent conflicts of interest",
      "constraint_type": "procedural",
      "flexibility": "hard",
      "violation_impact": "Contract invalidity, loss of project eligibility, potential legal liability",
      "mitigation_possible": "Only by selecting different project delivery methods or restructuring organizational relationships",
      "examples_from_case": ["CM-at-Risk firm and Engineer of Record must be distinct entities"],
      "source_text": "if Construction Manager at Risk is selected by the owner, City B, the funding agency requires the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record be two",
      "confidence": 0.85,
      "reasoning": "While related to conflict of interest, this is a structural constraint on organizational relationships not covered by existing Ethical or Procedural constraint classes"
    }
  ],
  "constraint_individuals": [
    {
      "identifier": "FundingMethodLimitation",
      "constraint_class": "Funding Source Constraint",
      "constrained_entity": "City B",
      "constraint_statement": "Can only use Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, or Progressive-Design-Build for the wastewater project",
      "source": "Proposed funding source requirements",
      "enforcement_mechanism": "Funding agency approval and audit processes",
      "temporal_scope": "Duration of the funded project",
      "severity": "critical",
      "case_context": "Limits City B's options for project delivery method selection",
      "source_text": "Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods",
      "is_existing_class": false,
      "confidence": 0.95
    },
    {
      "identifier": "CMAtRiskSeparation",
      "constraint_class": "Entity Separation Constraint",
      "constrained_entity": "City B and potential contractors",
      "constraint_statement": "Construction Manager at Risk firm and Engineer of Record must be two distinct entities",
      "source": "Funding agency requirements",
      "enforcement_mechanism": "Contract review and funding agency oversight",
      "temporal_scope": "If CM-at-Risk method is selected",
      "severity": "critical",
      "case_context": "Prevents Engineer A from serving as both CM-at-Risk and Engineer of Record",
      "source_text": "the funding agency requires the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record be two distinct entities",
      "is_existing_class": false,
      "confidence": 0.9
    },
    {
      "identifier": "EngineerACompetenceLimit",
      "constraint_class": "Competence Constraint",
      "constrained_entity": "Engineer A",
      "constraint_statement": "Limited to providing construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk methods only",
      "source": "Engineer A's qualifications and capabilities",
      "enforcement_mechanism": "Professional competence standards",
      "temporal_scope": "Current qualification status",
      "severity": "major",
      "case_context": "Restricts which delivery methods Engineer A can recommend based on ability to perform",
      "source_text": "Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods",
      "is_existing_class": true,
      "confidence": 0.85
    },
    {
      "identifier": "NoContractualRelationship",
      "constraint_class": "Jurisdictional Constraint",
      "constrained_entity": "Engineer A",
      "constraint_statement": "Has no current contractual relationship with City B",
      "source": "Current business status",
      "enforcement_mechanism": "Contract law",
      "temporal_scope": "Current state",
      "severity": "minor",
      "case_context": "Engineer A acts as independent advisor without contractual obligations",
      "source_text": "Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B",
      "is_existing_class": true,
      "confidence": 0.8
    }
  ]
}
```
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: Engineer A provides construction services in the community of City B and is a licensed professional engineer in State C where City B is located. City B is a large metropolitan area and all forms of contracting are available. Engineer A currently has no contractual relationship with City B. City B’s City Administrator asked Engineer A for a recommendation on project delivery methods for their upcoming wastewater system improvements project using a specific funding source. City Administrator is not a licensed professional engineer. Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build, and Progressive-Design-Build. Additionally, if Construction Manager at Risk is selected by the owner, City B, the funding agency requires the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer of Record be two distinct entities. Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options. Engineer A recommended Progressive Design Build. Accompanying the recommendation, Engineer A provided a summary of the firm’s experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects 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: 2025-12-21 12:30
LLM Response
```json
{
  "new_capability_classes": [
    {
      "label": "Project Delivery Method Assessment Capability",
      "definition": "The competency to evaluate, compare, and recommend appropriate project delivery methods based on client needs, funding requirements, and regulatory constraints",
      "capability_type": "analytical",
      "norm_competence_related": "Enables provision of objective, comprehensive professional advice to clients regarding project execution options",
      "skill_level": "advanced",
      "acquisition_method": "Experience with multiple project delivery methods, understanding of funding requirements, industry training",
      "examples_from_case": ["Evaluating four approved delivery methods", "Recommending Progressive Design Build"],
      "source_text": "Engineer A prepared a summary memo to City B Administrator and only identified Design-Bid-Build and Progressive-Design-Build as viable project delivery options",
      "confidence": 0.9,
      "reasoning": "This capability is distinct from existing classes as it specifically addresses the competency to assess and recommend project delivery methodologies, which is not covered by current capability types"
    },
    {
      "label": "Funding Source Compliance Capability",
      "definition": "The competency to understand and navigate specific funding source requirements and constraints for public infrastructure projects",
      "capability_type": "technical",
      "norm_competence_related": "Enables compliance with funding agency requirements while advising clients on project options",
      "skill_level": "intermediate",
      "acquisition_method": "Experience with government funding programs, regulatory training, professional development",
      "examples_from_case": ["Understanding four approved methods under funding source", "Knowing Construction Manager requirements"],
      "source_text": "Under the proposed funding source, there are four approved project delivery methods: Design-Bid-Build, Construction-Management-at-Risk, Fixed-Price-Design-Build",
      "confidence": 0.85,
      "reasoning": "Different from Regulatory Compliance Capability as it specifically addresses funding source requirements rather than general regulations"
    }
  ],
  "capability_individuals": [
    {
      "identifier": "EngineerA_ProgressiveDesignBuild_Capability",
      "capability_class": "Project Delivery Method Assessment Capability",
      "possessed_by": "Engineer A",
      "capability_statement": "Qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build delivery method",
      "demonstrated_through": "Firm's experience with Progressive-Design-Build projects and references from past projects",
      "proficiency_level": "expert",
      "enables_obligations": "Providing competent professional services in construction project delivery",
      "temporal_aspect": "Current and ongoing",
      "case_context": "Engineer A has specific expertise in Progressive-Design-Build methodology for wastewater projects",
      "source_text": "Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods",
      "is_existing_class": false,
      "confidence": 0.95
    },
    {
      "identifier": "EngineerA_ConstructionManagerAtRisk_Capability",
      "capability_class": "Project Delivery Method Assessment Capability",
      "possessed_by": "Engineer A",
      "capability_statement": "Qualified to provide construction services under Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery method",
      "demonstrated_through": "Professional qualifications and experience",
      "proficiency_level": "advanced",
      "enables_obligations": "Providing competent construction management services",
      "temporal_aspect": "Current and ongoing",
      "case_context": "Engineer A possesses qualification but this option requires separate Engineer of Record",
      "source_text": "Engineer A is qualified to provide construction services under Progressive-Design-Build and Construction-Manager-at-Risk delivery methods",
      "is_existing_class": false,
      "confidence": 0.95
    },
    {
      "identifier": "EngineerA_WastewaterSystem_Technical",
      "capability_class": "Technical Capability",
      "possessed_by": "Engineer A",
      "capability_statement": "Provide construction services for wastewater system improvements",
      "demonstrated_through": "Licensed professional engineer status and construction services experience",
      "proficiency_level": "advanced",
      "enables_obligations": "Competent delivery of wastewater infrastructure projects",
      "temporal_aspect": "Current and ongoing",
      "case_context": "Engineer A provides construction services relevant to City B's wastewater project",
      "source_text": "Engineer A provides construction services in the community of City B and is a licensed professional engineer in State C",
      "is_existing_class": true,
      "confidence": 0.9
    },
    {
      "identifier": "EngineerA_FundingCompliance_Capability",
      "capability_class": "Funding Source Compliance Capability",
      "possessed_by": "Engineer A",
      "capability_statement": "Understanding specific funding source requirements for project delivery methods",
      "demonstrated_through": "Ability to identify compliant delivery methods from approved options",
      "proficiency_level": "intermediate",
      "enables_obligations": "Ensuring project recommendations comply with funding agency requirements",
      "temporal_aspect": "During project planning and recommendation phase",
      "case_context": "Engineer A demonstrates understanding of funding source constraints in recommendations",
      "source_text": "if Construction Manager at Risk is selected by the owner, City B, the funding agency requires the Construction Manager at Risk firm and the Engineer",
      "is_existing_class": false,
      "confidence": 0.85
    }
  ]
}
```