Step 1b: Contextual Framework Pass (Discussion)

EXISTING STATE CLASSES IN ONTOLOGY (DO NOT RE-EXTRACT THESE): STATE STATES: - AI Tool Inexperience State: A state where a professional is using AI tools without prior experience or full understanding of their functionality, accuracy, and limitations - AI Tool Reliance State: A state where a professional is using AI-generated content or tools for technical work without full verification processes - Certification Required State: Checkpoint state requiring formal validation processes - Client Risk Acceptance State: A state where a client has been fully informed of specific risks to vulnerable populations but chooses to proceed without mitigation measures - Climate Resilience Policy State: A state where an organization has formal policies requiring infrastructure projects to incorporate climate change resilience and sustainability considerations - Competing Duties State: State requiring ethical prioritization between conflicting obligations - Confidentiality Breach State: A state where client confidential information has been exposed to unauthorized parties or systems without prior consent - Conflict of Interest State: Professional situation where personal and professional interests compete - Disproportionate Impact Discovery State: A state where a professional has discovered that a proposed solution would disproportionately harm a specific vulnerable population under certain conditions - Insufficient Attribution State: A state where substantial contributions to work product from AI or other sources are not properly acknowledged or cited - Make Objective Truthful Statements: Requirement for honesty in professional communications - Mentor Absence State: A state where a professional lacks access to their established mentor or supervisor for guidance and quality assurance, affecting their confidence and work processes - Non-Compliant State: State requiring compliance remediation - Non-Compliant State: Problematic state requiring immediate corrective action - Objective and Truthful Statements: Requirement for honesty in professional communications - Professional Position Statement: Official position statements from professional organizations defining key concepts and standards - Provide Objective Statements: Professional communication standard - Public Statements: Requirement for honesty and objectivity in all public communications and professional statements - Regulatory Compliance State: Legal compliance context constraining actions - Stakeholder Division State: A state where stakeholder groups have expressed conflicting preferences for different technical solutions, creating competing pressures on professional decision-making - State: A quality representing conditions that affect ethical decisions and professional conduct. This is the S component of the formal specification D=(R,P,O,S,Rs,A,E,Ca,Cs). - Technical Writing Insecurity State: A state where a professional lacks confidence in a specific technical skill area despite having expertise in other aspects of their field IMPORTANT: Only extract NEW state types not listed above! You are analyzing a professional ethics case to extract both STATE CLASSES and STATE INSTANCES. DEFINITIONS: - STATE CLASS: A type of situational condition (e.g., "Conflict of Interest", "Emergency Situation", "Resource Constraint") - STATE INDIVIDUAL: A specific instance of a state active in this case attached to specific people/organizations CRITICAL REQUIREMENT: Every STATE CLASS you identify MUST be based on at least one specific STATE INDIVIDUAL instance in the case. You cannot propose a state class without providing the concrete instance(s) that demonstrate it. KEY INSIGHT FROM LITERATURE: States are not abstract - they are concrete conditions affecting specific actors at specific times. Each state has a subject (WHO is in the state), temporal boundaries (WHEN), and causal relationships (WHY). YOUR TASK - Extract two LINKED types of entities: 1. NEW STATE CLASSES (types not in the existing ontology above): - Novel types of situational states discovered in this case - Must be sufficiently general to apply to other cases - Should represent distinct environmental or contextual conditions - Consider both inertial (persistent) and non-inertial (momentary) fluents 2. STATE INDIVIDUALS (specific instances in this case): - Specific states active in this case narrative - MUST be attached to specific individuals or organizations in the case - Include temporal properties (when initiated, when terminated) - Include causal relationships (triggered by what event, affects which obligations) - Map to existing classes where possible, or to new classes you discover EXTRACTION GUIDELINES: For NEW STATE CLASSES, identify: - Label: Clear, professional name for the state type - Definition: What this state represents - Activation conditions: What events/conditions trigger this state - Termination conditions: What events/conditions end this state - Persistence type: "inertial" (persists until terminated) or "non-inertial" (momentary) - Affected obligations: Which professional duties does this state affect? - Temporal properties: How does this state evolve over time? - Domain context: Medical/Engineering/Legal/etc. - Examples from case: Specific instances showing this state type For STATE INDIVIDUALS, identify: - Identifier: Unique descriptor (e.g., "John_Smith_ConflictOfInterest_ProjectX") - State class: Which state type it represents (existing or new) - Subject: WHO is in this state (person/organization name from the case) - Initiated by: What event triggered this state? - Initiated at: When did this state begin? - Terminated by: What event ended this state (if applicable)? - Terminated at: When did this state end (if applicable)? - Affects obligations: Which specific obligations were affected? - Urgency/Intensity: Does this state's urgency change over time? - Related parties: Who else is affected by this state? - Case involvement: How this state affected the case outcome CASE TEXT FROM discussion SECTION: Old BER cases are a rich trove of resources for engineers like R to turn to for guidance about environmental concerns and voicing these concerns publicly. In BER Case 79-2 , engineers A and B collaborated on an assignment to make studies and final contours for an existing sanitary landfill. After several presentations to the town council A and B were directed to prepare a new design for the existing site at higher final contours - the new design would provide for a hill 100 feet higher than originally proposed. Engineer C, a resident of the town contended the new design will be environmentally unsound. One of the questions the BER was asked to resolve in 1979 was if it was ethical for C to publicly challenge the design approach adopted by A and B. The BER pointed to BER Case 63-6 where they observed “There may...be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the interpretation of the known physical facts.” They also stated that “it is not unethical for engineers to offer conflicting opinions on the application of engineering principles, or to criticize the work of another engineer, at hearings on an engineering project, in the interest of the public, provided such criticism is offered on a high level of professional deportment.” BER Case 20-4 is particularly relevant. In this situation, engineers A and B find themselves at odds with a metropolitan water commission (MWC) that is in favor of changing the water supply source to one which A and B believe cannot be used safely before additional study and plant capital investment. In Case 20-4 , the MWC overruled the engineering judgment of A and B. The BER concluded that “The formal presentations satisfy Engineer A’s and Engineer B’s duty to report. However, in the event that these formal presentations fail to sway the MWC to change its plans, given the gravity of the danger to public health and safety, Engineers A and B have an obligation to further pursue the matter.” These two cases confirm that R had an obligation to bring forward concerns at the public hearing. As with engineers A and B in Case 20-4 , engineer R’s formal presentation to the Drainage Board satisfies the duty to report. If R’s judgment, based on experience, indicates the tank location could jeopardize the water quality in the event of a leak, R can raise concern to a higher level, perhaps the state environmental regulatory agency. Questions 2 and 3 are closely related and raise the question if engineer H misrepresented H’s personal qualifications when testifying to the Drainage Board? Was H practicing engineering? Laws regarding the practice of engineering vary from state to state and should be checked. In the view of the BER, providing verbal engineering input at a public meeting where a public board is relying on such input in its decision-making is likely to be determined to be the practice of engineering, requiring licensure in that jurisdiction. Practitioners should consult the governing statutes and regulations to determine the applicable definition of the practice of engineering. Question 4 deals with objectivity and truthfulness - issues directly addressed by fundamental Canon 1.3. Should H have addressed R’s concerns about leaks from underground tanks? BER Case 95-5 is applicable here. The facts of this case are quite detailed and specific, but a key fact, and one that the BER focused on, was an engineer’s failure to include relevant information in a report. The board concluded that selective use of facts does a disservice by potentially misdirecting a conclusion; selective use of data led to an incomplete engineering report and is inconsistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics which requires that engineers “shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony.” Engineer H’s redirection of conversation away from issues with the potential for leaks in underground tanks is troubling not only because of the failure to address the issues raised and the failure to include all relevant information in testimony, but also because Professional Obligation III.2.d encourages all engineers to adhere to the principles of sustainable development to protect the environment for future generations. Engineer R’s testimony about issues with the site fill and the possibility of leaks from underground fuel storage tanks should have one of two results. First, if true, Engineer H should have explained how the issue had already been evaluated and addressed. Or, second, R’s testimony should have caused Engineer H and Firm C to offer/agree to re-examine the plans. If neither of these conditions is true, then Engineer H’s testimony was incomplete and misleading. Respond with a JSON structure. Here's a CONCRETE EXAMPLE showing the required linkage: EXAMPLE (if the case mentions "Engineer A faced a conflict when discovering his brother worked for the contractor"): { "new_state_classes": [ { "label": "Family Conflict of Interest", "definition": "A state where a professional's family relationships create potential bias in professional decisions", "activation_conditions": ["Discovery of family member involvement", "Family member has financial interest"], "termination_conditions": ["Recusal from decision", "Family member withdraws"], "persistence_type": "inertial", "affected_obligations": ["Duty of impartiality", "Disclosure requirements"], "temporal_properties": "Persists until formally addressed through recusal or disclosure", "domain_context": "Engineering", "examples_from_case": ["Engineer A discovered brother worked for ABC Contractors"], "source_text": "Engineer A faced a conflict when discovering his brother worked for the contractor", "confidence": 0.85, "rationale": "Specific type of conflict not covered by general COI in existing ontology" } ], "state_individuals": [ { "identifier": "EngineerA_FamilyConflict_ABCContractors", "state_class": "Family Conflict of Interest", "subject": "Engineer A", "initiated_by": "Discovery that brother is senior manager at ABC Contractors", "initiated_at": "When bidding process began", "terminated_by": "Engineer A recused from contractor selection", "terminated_at": "Two weeks after discovery", "affects_obligations": ["Maintain impartial contractor selection", "Disclose conflicts to client"], "urgency_level": "high", "related_parties": ["Client B", "ABC Contractors", "Engineer A's brother"], "case_involvement": "Led to Engineer A's recusal from contractor selection process", "source_text": "Engineer A discovered his brother is senior manager at ABC Contractors during the bidding process", "is_existing_class": false, "confidence": 0.9 } ] } YOUR RESPONSE FORMAT (use the same structure with YOUR case's specific details): { "new_state_classes": [ // For each new state type you discover ], "state_individuals": [ // For each specific instance in the case (MUST have at least one per new class) ] } EXTRACTION RULES: 1. For EVERY new state class you identify, you MUST provide at least one corresponding state individual 2. State individuals MUST have a clear subject (specific person/organization from the case) 3. If you cannot identify a specific instance, do not create the state class 4. States without subjects are invalid (e.g., cannot have "general emergency" - must be "City M's water emergency") 5. Each state individual should clearly demonstrate why its state class is needed Focus on states that: 1. Are attached to specific individuals or organizations mentioned in the case 2. Have clear temporal boundaries (when initiated, when terminated) 3. Affect specific ethical obligations or professional duties 4. Show causal relationships with events in the case 5. Demonstrate the context-dependent nature of professional ethics EXAMPLE OF CORRECT EXTRACTION: State Class: "Public Health Risk State" State Individual: "City_M_PublicHealthRisk_2023" with subject="City M", initiated_by="Decision to change water source", affects_obligations=["Ensure public safety", "Provide clean water"] EXAMPLE OF INCORRECT EXTRACTION: State Class: "Emergency Situation" with NO corresponding individual (INVALID - no specific instance)