Step 2: Normative Requirements Pass (Facts Section)
Extract principles, obligations, constraints, and capabilities from the facts section
Independence of Peer Reviewer
Step 2 of 5
Facts Section
Section Content:
Facts: wner is developing a site with two mirror-image towers to be built two years apart. As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A. Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B. Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know. Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A. When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A, Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
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:
wner is developing a site with two mirror-image towers to be built two years apart. As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A. Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B. Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know. Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A. When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A, Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
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 13:00
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_principle_classes": [
{
"label": "Professional Collegiality",
"definition": "Principle that professionals should maintain respectful, collaborative relationships with peers, including during review and evaluation processes",
"abstract_nature": "Respect for professional dignity and collaborative professionalism",
"extensional_examples": ["Peer reviews with notification", "Collaborative error correction", "Professional courtesy in evaluations"],
"value_basis": "Mutual respect and professional dignity",
"application_context": ["Peer review processes", "Professional evaluations", "Quality assurance reviews"],
"operationalization": "Through transparent communication, advance notification of reviews, opportunity for response",
"balancing_requirements": ["Client confidentiality", "Quality assurance needs", "Public safety"],
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A"],
"source_text": "Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A"
},
{
"label": "Procedural Fairness",
"definition": "Principle that professional evaluations and reviews should follow fair procedures including notice and opportunity to participate",
"abstract_nature": "Due process and procedural justice",
"extensional_examples": ["Notice before review", "Right to respond to criticism", "Transparent evaluation processes"],
"value_basis": "Fairness and due process",
"application_context": ["Professional reviews", "Quality assessments", "Error investigations"],
"operationalization": "Through notification requirements, consent processes, opportunity for response",
"balancing_requirements": ["Client autonomy", "Efficiency needs", "Confidentiality requirements"],
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer B's insistence on notifying Engineer A", "Engineer A's objection and refusal to consent"],
"source_text": "Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A"
}
],
"principle_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "Transparency_PeerReview_EngineerB",
"principle_class": "Transparency Principle",
"concrete_expression": "Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A",
"invoked_by": ["Engineer B"],
"applied_to": ["peer review process for second tower"],
"interpretation": "Transparency requires that professionals be informed when their work is under review",
"source_text": "Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A",
"balancing_with": ["Client wishes for confidentiality"],
"tension_resolution": "Engineer B successfully insists on notification despite Owner's initial reluctance",
"case_relevance": "Central to the ethical conflict about how peer reviews should be conducted"
},
{
"identifier": "Professional_Autonomy_EngineerA",
"principle_class": "Professional Virtue Principle",
"concrete_expression": "Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review",
"invoked_by": ["Engineer A"],
"applied_to": ["peer review of second tower plans"],
"interpretation": "Professional autonomy includes right to object to evaluation processes",
"source_text": "Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review",
"balancing_with": ["Owner's right to quality assurance", "Public safety concerns"],
"tension_resolution": "Unresolved - Engineer A refuses consent creating ongoing tension",
"case_relevance": "Creates the core dilemma about whether peer review can proceed without consent"
},
{
"identifier": "Quality_Assurance_Owner",
"principle_class": "Competence Principle",
"concrete_expression": "Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower",
"invoked_by": ["Owner"],
"applied_to": ["second tower design review"],
"interpretation": "Recognition that significant errors warrant independent review of future work",
"source_text": "several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A. Owner decides to obtain a peer review",
"balancing_with": ["Professional relationships", "Engineer A's autonomy"],
"tension_resolution": "Owner prioritizes quality assurance but reluctantly agrees to notification",
"case_relevance": "Establishes the legitimate need for peer review given discovered errors"
}
]
}
```
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:
wner is developing a site with two mirror-image towers to be built two years apart. As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A. Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B. Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know. Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A. When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A, Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
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 13:01
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_obligation_classes": [
{
"label": "Peer Review Transparency Obligation",
"definition": "Requirement to conduct peer reviews with the knowledge and participation of the reviewed professional, ensuring transparency and fairness in the review process",
"derived_from_principle": "Professional Respect and Fair Treatment",
"duty_type": "professional",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Professional ethics boards, peer review standards, professional association guidelines",
"violation_consequences": "Ethical violations, damage to professional relationships, potential legal challenges to review findings",
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer B objects to conducting review without advising Engineer A", "Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A"],
"source_text": "Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A",
"confidence": 0.85,
"reasoning": "This represents a specific duty about transparency in peer review processes not covered by existing Collegial or Disclosure obligations"
},
{
"label": "Peer Review Consent Obligation",
"definition": "Requirement to obtain consent from the professional being reviewed before conducting a formal peer review of their work",
"derived_from_principle": "Professional Autonomy and Due Process",
"duty_type": "professional",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Professional standards, contractual agreements, professional association rules",
"violation_consequences": "Invalid review findings, professional ethics violations, potential legal disputes",
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review"],
"source_text": "Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review",
"confidence": 0.75,
"reasoning": "Distinct from general consent obligations - specifically addresses peer review consent requirements not in existing ontology"
}
],
"obligation_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "EngineerB_PeerReviewTransparency_001",
"obligation_class": "Peer Review Transparency Obligation",
"obligated_party": "Engineer B",
"obligation_statement": "Must ensure Engineer A is aware of the peer review being conducted on their work",
"derived_from": "Professional ethics and peer review standards",
"enforcement_context": "Professional peer review guidelines",
"temporal_scope": "Before and during peer review process",
"compliance_status": "met",
"case_context": "Engineer B objected to conducting secret review and ensured Engineer A was notified",
"source_text": "Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.9
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerA_CompetenceObligation_001",
"obligation_class": "Competence Obligation",
"obligated_party": "Engineer A",
"obligation_statement": "Must provide competent engineering services without significant design errors",
"derived_from": "NSPE II.2",
"enforcement_context": "Professional standards and building codes",
"temporal_scope": "During original design phase",
"compliance_status": "unmet",
"case_context": "Several significant design errors were discovered in Engineer A's plans",
"source_text": "several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.95
},
{
"identifier": "Owner_PeerReviewConsent_001",
"obligation_class": "Peer Review Consent Obligation",
"obligated_party": "Owner",
"obligation_statement": "Should obtain consent from Engineer A before conducting peer review of their work",
"derived_from": "Professional standards and fair practice",
"enforcement_context": "Professional ethics and potential contractual requirements",
"temporal_scope": "Before initiating peer review",
"compliance_status": "unmet",
"case_context": "Owner initially instructed secret review, then proceeded despite Engineer A's refusal to consent",
"source_text": "Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.8
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerB_QualityAssurance_001",
"obligation_class": "Quality Assurance Obligation",
"obligated_party": "Engineer B",
"obligation_statement": "Must implement appropriate review and verification processes for the second tower design",
"derived_from": "Professional standards for peer review",
"enforcement_context": "Peer review standards and professional guidelines",
"temporal_scope": "During peer review process",
"compliance_status": "pending",
"case_context": "Engineer B retained to conduct peer review of plans for second tower",
"source_text": "Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B",
"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:
wner is developing a site with two mirror-image towers to be built two years apart. As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A. Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B. Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know. Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A. When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A, Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
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 13:01
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_constraint_classes": [
{
"label": "Consent Constraint",
"definition": "Limitations requiring explicit permission from affected parties before proceeding with professional reviews or evaluations of their work",
"constraint_type": "procedural",
"flexibility": "negotiable",
"violation_impact": "Proceeding without consent may violate professional ethics, damage relationships, and potentially lead to legal disputes",
"mitigation_possible": "Can be mitigated through negotiation, alternative review methods, or regulatory override in safety-critical situations",
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer A's refusal to consent to peer review", "Owner's initial attempt to conduct review without notification"],
"source_text": "Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review",
"confidence": 0.85,
"reasoning": "This represents a boundary on professional review processes not covered by existing confidentiality or procedural constraints - specifically the requirement for consent from the reviewed party"
},
{
"label": "Notification Constraint",
"definition": "Requirements to inform relevant parties about professional activities that directly affect their work or reputation",
"constraint_type": "procedural",
"flexibility": "soft",
"violation_impact": "Failure to notify may breach professional courtesy, ethical standards, and damage professional relationships",
"mitigation_possible": "Can be overridden by legal requirements or safety concerns, but generally expected in professional practice",
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer B's objection to conducting review without advising Engineer A", "Owner's reluctant consent to notification"],
"source_text": "Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A",
"confidence": 0.80,
"reasoning": "Distinct from confidentiality constraints as it concerns proactive disclosure obligations rather than information protection boundaries"
}
],
"constraint_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "EngineerA_Consent_Requirement",
"constraint_class": "Consent Constraint",
"constrained_entity": "Peer review process",
"constraint_statement": "Cannot proceed with peer review without Engineer A's consent",
"source": "Engineer A's professional rights",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Engineer A's refusal to participate or provide necessary documentation",
"temporal_scope": "Before and during the peer review process",
"severity": "major",
"case_context": "Engineer A's refusal blocks the peer review of the second tower design",
"source_text": "Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.85
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerB_Notification_Requirement",
"constraint_class": "Notification Constraint",
"constrained_entity": "Engineer B",
"constraint_statement": "Must notify Engineer A before conducting peer review of their work",
"source": "Professional ethics and courtesy",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Engineer B's professional objection and ethical standards",
"temporal_scope": "Before initiating the peer review",
"severity": "major",
"case_context": "Engineer B refuses to proceed without notifying Engineer A",
"source_text": "Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.80
},
{
"identifier": "Owner_Disclosure_Limitation",
"constraint_class": "Confidentiality Constraint",
"constrained_entity": "Owner",
"constraint_statement": "Initially restricted from disclosing peer review to Engineer A",
"source": "Owner's initial strategic decision",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Owner's instructions to Engineer B",
"temporal_scope": "Initial phase of peer review planning",
"severity": "minor",
"case_context": "Owner initially wanted secret peer review but relented",
"source_text": "Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.75
},
{
"identifier": "Design_Error_Safety_Boundary",
"constraint_class": "Safety Constraint",
"constrained_entity": "Second tower construction",
"constraint_statement": "Cannot proceed with second tower using plans with known design errors",
"source": "Discovery of significant design errors in first tower",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Safety regulations and liability concerns",
"temporal_scope": "Before construction of second tower",
"severity": "critical",
"case_context": "Design errors in first tower necessitate review of second tower plans",
"source_text": "several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.90
}
]
}
```
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:
wner is developing a site with two mirror-image towers to be built two years apart. As the first tower is built, several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A. Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B. Owner instructs Engineer B to conduct the peer review without letting Engineer A know. Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A. When Owner reluctantly consents to notifying Engineer A, Engineer A objects and refused to consent to the peer review.
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 13:02
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_capability_classes": [
{
"label": "Peer Review Capability",
"definition": "The competency to conduct objective, thorough technical reviews of another professional's work to identify errors and ensure quality",
"capability_type": "analytical",
"norm_competence_related": "Enables fulfillment of quality assurance obligations and professional duty to protect public safety",
"skill_level": "advanced",
"acquisition_method": "Years of professional experience, specialized training in review methodologies, understanding of industry standards",
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer B retained to conduct peer review", "Review of plans and design for errors"],
"source_text": "Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B",
"confidence": 0.9,
"reasoning": "Peer review is a distinct professional competency not covered by existing capabilities - requires specific analytical and evaluative skills beyond general technical capability"
},
{
"label": "Professional Transparency Capability",
"definition": "The competency to maintain open communication and transparency with professional colleagues about reviews or evaluations of their work",
"capability_type": "ethical",
"norm_competence_related": "Enables fulfillment of professional courtesy obligations and ethical duties to fellow professionals",
"skill_level": "intermediate",
"acquisition_method": "Professional ethics training, understanding of professional codes of conduct, experience in professional relationships",
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer B objects to conducting review without advising Engineer A", "Insistence on notification"],
"source_text": "Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A",
"confidence": 0.85,
"reasoning": "This represents a specific ethical competency about professional transparency not covered by existing ethical capabilities"
}
],
"capability_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "EngineerA_TechnicalDesign_Capability",
"capability_class": "Technical Capability",
"possessed_by": "Engineer A",
"capability_statement": "Design and plan development for multi-tower construction projects",
"demonstrated_through": "Creation of plans and design for tower construction",
"proficiency_level": "intermediate",
"enables_obligations": "Professional duty to provide technically sound designs",
"temporal_aspect": "During initial design phase",
"case_context": "Capability demonstrated but with errors discovered during construction",
"source_text": "several significant design errors are discovered in the plans and design of Engineer A",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.95
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerB_PeerReview_Capability",
"capability_class": "Peer Review Capability",
"possessed_by": "Engineer B",
"capability_statement": "Conduct technical peer review of engineering plans and designs",
"demonstrated_through": "Being retained specifically for peer review services",
"proficiency_level": "advanced",
"enables_obligations": "Quality assurance and error detection obligations",
"temporal_aspect": "Before construction of second tower",
"case_context": "Retained to review plans after errors found in first tower",
"source_text": "Owner decides to obtain a peer review of the plans and design of Engineer A for the second tower and retains Engineer B",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.9
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerB_ProfessionalTransparency_Capability",
"capability_class": "Professional Transparency Capability",
"possessed_by": "Engineer B",
"capability_statement": "Maintain ethical transparency in professional peer review processes",
"demonstrated_through": "Objecting to conducting secret peer review",
"proficiency_level": "advanced",
"enables_obligations": "Professional courtesy and ethical conduct obligations",
"temporal_aspect": "During peer review negotiation",
"case_context": "Insisted on notifying Engineer A before conducting review",
"source_text": "Engineer B objects to conducting the peer review without advising Engineer A",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.85
}
]
}
```