Step 2: Normative Requirements Pass (Facts Section)

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

Siting a Truck Stop
Step 2 of 5

Facts Section

Section Content:
Facts:
Engineer R, a licensed professional engineer in State I with extensive knowledge of environmental regulation learns that a ZZZ Truck Stop will be constructed adjacent to a waterway, specifically a creek; the proposed truck stop is quite close to the location where the creek discharges into a major river in the state.
R is aware that the site was used in the past for what would today be characterized as an illegal fill; however, the site was not regulated while it was filled.
The county surveyor corroborated R’s observations but confirmed that filling occurred before current regulations were in place.
As a result of the fill, the proposed construction site is not in a flood plain.
Engineer R sees plans for the truck stop and learns the underground fuel storage tanks will be located close to the creek.
Firm C is in a national partnership with ZZZ, and it provides a wide array of site services including taking a project from conceptual site layout through the final design of grading, utilities, and stormwater for complex spaces like the truck stop.
Engineer H is employed by firm C and will present the project for approval by the county drainage board at a public hearing.
Engineer R testifies as a member of the public about concerns with fill material and its characteristics, potential of underground tanks to leak, and the proximity of tanks to the creek , acknowledges that in its present condition, the site technically complies with floodplain requirements, but requests the Drainage Board and ZZZ’s design firm take into consideration the site history and asks that they look for a different location for the fuel storage tanks.
R also points out that analysis of State I’s Department of Environmental Management Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database shows that 6% of the underground tanks installed in the previous 5 years experienced a reportable leak or spill.
Following up R’s presentation, the Drainage Board vice president asks Engineer H about R’s testimony.
H stated the tanks were set back substantially from the creek due to the large site plan.
H also indicated the site’s grading is designed so that if a surface spill occurred, the spill would flow back to the pavement area and not directly toward the creek.
Person B, a representative of ZZZ, also responded and pointed out that fuel storage tanks were generally placed where they have good access for tanker trucks and there is a reasonable run for the fuel lines to the dispensing pumps.
Person B said they would speak with their environmental team to see if there are any other measures they can take.
The Drainage Board vice president thanked all for their testimony and then the Drainage Board voted to approve the plan.
After construction begins, R observes the tank locations were not changed.
R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O.
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 R, a licensed professional engineer in State I with extensive knowledge of environmental regulation learns that a ZZZ Truck Stop will be constructed adjacent to a waterway, specifically a creek; the proposed truck stop is quite close to the location where the creek discharges into a major river in the state. R is aware that the site was used in the past for what would today be characterized as an illegal fill; however, the site was not regulated while it was filled. The county surveyor corroborated R’s observations but confirmed that filling occurred before current regulations were in place. As a result of the fill, the proposed construction site is not in a flood plain. Engineer R sees plans for the truck stop and learns the underground fuel storage tanks will be located close to the creek. Firm C is in a national partnership with ZZZ, and it provides a wide array of site services including taking a project from conceptual site layout through the final design of grading, utilities, and stormwater for complex spaces like the truck stop. Engineer H is employed by firm C and will present the project for approval by the county drainage board at a public hearing. Engineer R testifies as a member of the public about concerns with fill material and its characteristics, potential of underground tanks to leak, and the proximity of tanks to the creek , acknowledges that in its present condition, the site technically complies with floodplain requirements, but requests the Drainage Board and ZZZ’s design firm take into consideration the site history and asks that they look for a different location for the fuel storage tanks. R also points out that analysis of State I’s Department of Environmental Management Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database shows that 6% of the underground tanks installed in the previous 5 years experienced a reportable leak or spill. Following up R’s presentation, the Drainage Board vice president asks Engineer H about R’s testimony. H stated the tanks were set back substantially from the creek due to the large site plan. H also indicated the site’s grading is designed so that if a surface spill occurred, the spill would flow back to the pavement area and not directly toward the creek. Person B, a representative of ZZZ, also responded and pointed out that fuel storage tanks were generally placed where they have good access for tanker trucks and there is a reasonable run for the fuel lines to the dispensing pumps. Person B said they would speak with their environmental team to see if there are any other measures they can take. The Drainage Board vice president thanked all for their testimony and then the Drainage Board voted to approve the plan. After construction begins, R observes the tank locations were not changed. R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O. 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: 2025-12-29 16:54
LLM Response
```json
{
    "new_principle_classes": [
        {
            "label": "Precautionary Principle",
            "definition": "Principle that potential environmental or public health risks should be addressed proactively even without complete scientific certainty",
            "abstract_nature": "Risk prevention and protective responsibility",
            "extensional_examples": ["Avoiding potentially hazardous site locations", "Implementing additional safety measures beyond minimum requirements", "Considering historical site conditions in current decisions"],
            "value_basis": "Prevention of harm over remediation",
            "application_context": ["Environmental engineering", "Site development", "Public infrastructure"],
            "operationalization": "Through risk assessments, consideration of historical data, implementation of protective measures beyond regulatory minimums",
            "balancing_requirements": ["Economic efficiency", "Technical compliance", "Development timelines"],
            "examples_from_case": ["R's request to consider site history and relocate tanks despite technical compliance", "Reference to 6% leak rate as justification for precaution"],
            "source_text": "requests the Drainage Board and ZZZ's design firm take into consideration the site history and asks that they look for a different location for the fuel storage tanks"
        },
        {
            "label": "Historical Context Principle",
            "definition": "Principle that past site conditions and uses should inform current engineering decisions even when not legally required",
            "abstract_nature": "Temporal responsibility and contextual awareness",
            "extensional_examples": ["Considering pre-regulation site activities", "Accounting for legacy contamination", "Evaluating cumulative environmental impacts"],
            "value_basis": "Comprehensive understanding and long-term responsibility",
            "application_context": ["Site development", "Environmental remediation", "Infrastructure planning"],
            "operationalization": "Through historical site assessments, consideration of pre-regulation activities, evaluation of cumulative impacts",
            "balancing_requirements": ["Current regulatory compliance", "Economic feasibility", "Development rights"],
            "examples_from_case": ["R's testimony about illegal fill that occurred before regulations", "Request to consider site history despite current technical compliance"],
            "source_text": "R is aware that the site was used in the past for what would today be characterized as an illegal fill; however, the site was not regulated while it was filled"
        }
    ],
    "principle_individuals": [
        {
            "identifier": "EnvironmentalStewardship_R_Testimony",
            "principle_class": "Environmental Stewardship Principle",
            "concrete_expression": "testifies as a member of the public about concerns with fill material and its characteristics, potential of underground tanks to leak, and the proximity of tanks to the creek",
            "invoked_by": ["Engineer R"],
            "applied_to": ["ZZZ Truck Stop construction near waterway"],
            "interpretation": "Professional responsibility to protect waterways extends beyond formal project involvement",
            "source_text": "Engineer R testifies as a member of the public about concerns with fill material and its characteristics, potential of underground tanks to leak, and the proximity of tanks to the creek",
            "balancing_with": ["Property rights", "Economic development"],
            "tension_resolution": "Public testimony used to raise environmental concerns within regulatory process",
            "case_relevance": "Demonstrates professional obligation to environmental protection even as private citizen"
        },
        {
            "identifier": "PublicWelfare_R_RiskAssessment",
            "principle_class": "Public Welfare Principle",
            "concrete_expression": "analysis of State I's Department of Environmental Management Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database shows that 6% of the underground tanks installed in the previous 5 years experienced a reportable leak or spill",
            "invoked_by": ["Engineer R"],
            "applied_to": ["Risk assessment for underground fuel storage tanks"],
            "interpretation": "Public welfare requires consideration of statistical risk data in siting decisions",
            "source_text": "R also points out that analysis of State I's Department of Environmental Management Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database shows that 6% of the underground tanks installed in the previous 5 years experienced a reportable leak or spill",
            "balancing_with": ["Technical compliance", "Business operations needs"],
            "tension_resolution": "Statistical evidence presented to support precautionary measures",
            "case_relevance": "Quantifies potential public welfare risk from tank placement"
        },
        {
            "identifier": "Competence_H_Licensing",
            "principle_class": "Competence Principle",
            "concrete_expression": "Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O",
            "invoked_by": ["Case narrative"],
            "applied_to": ["H's presentation to county drainage board"],
            "interpretation": "Professional competence includes proper licensure in jurisdiction of practice",
            "source_text": "R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O",
            "balancing_with": ["Business efficiency", "Interstate practice"],
            "tension_resolution": "Unresolved - potential violation of licensure requirements",
            "case_relevance": "Raises question about legitimacy of H's professional testimony before board"
        },
        {
            "identifier": "Transparency_H_Response",
            "principle_class": "Transparency Principle",
            "concrete_expression": "H stated the tanks were set back substantially from the creek due to the large site plan. H also indicated the site's grading is designed so that if a surface spill occurred, the spill would flow back to the pavement area",
            "invoked_by": ["Engineer H"],
            "applied_to": ["Response to public concerns about tank placement"],
            "interpretation": "Transparency requires explaining design rationale and safety measures to stakeholders",
            "source_text": "H stated the tanks were set back substantially from the creek due to the large site plan. H also indicated the site's grading is designed so that if a surface spill occurred, the spill would flow back to the pavement area and not directly toward the creek",
            "balancing_with": ["Client confidentiality", "Project approval interests"],
            "tension_resolution": "Technical details shared to address public concerns",
            "case_relevance": "Demonstrates attempt at transparent communication about safety measures"
        }
    ]
}
```
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 R, a licensed professional engineer in State I with extensive knowledge of environmental regulation learns that a ZZZ Truck Stop will be constructed adjacent to a waterway, specifically a creek; the proposed truck stop is quite close to the location where the creek discharges into a major river in the state. R is aware that the site was used in the past for what would today be characterized as an illegal fill; however, the site was not regulated while it was filled. The county surveyor corroborated R’s observations but confirmed that filling occurred before current regulations were in place. As a result of the fill, the proposed construction site is not in a flood plain. Engineer R sees plans for the truck stop and learns the underground fuel storage tanks will be located close to the creek. Firm C is in a national partnership with ZZZ, and it provides a wide array of site services including taking a project from conceptual site layout through the final design of grading, utilities, and stormwater for complex spaces like the truck stop. Engineer H is employed by firm C and will present the project for approval by the county drainage board at a public hearing. Engineer R testifies as a member of the public about concerns with fill material and its characteristics, potential of underground tanks to leak, and the proximity of tanks to the creek , acknowledges that in its present condition, the site technically complies with floodplain requirements, but requests the Drainage Board and ZZZ’s design firm take into consideration the site history and asks that they look for a different location for the fuel storage tanks. R also points out that analysis of State I’s Department of Environmental Management Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database shows that 6% of the underground tanks installed in the previous 5 years experienced a reportable leak or spill. Following up R’s presentation, the Drainage Board vice president asks Engineer H about R’s testimony. H stated the tanks were set back substantially from the creek due to the large site plan. H also indicated the site’s grading is designed so that if a surface spill occurred, the spill would flow back to the pavement area and not directly toward the creek. Person B, a representative of ZZZ, also responded and pointed out that fuel storage tanks were generally placed where they have good access for tanker trucks and there is a reasonable run for the fuel lines to the dispensing pumps. Person B said they would speak with their environmental team to see if there are any other measures they can take. The Drainage Board vice president thanked all for their testimony and then the Drainage Board voted to approve the plan. After construction begins, R observes the tank locations were not changed. R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O. 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: 2025-12-29 16:54
LLM Response
```json
{
  "new_obligation_classes": [
    {
      "label": "Jurisdictional Licensure Obligation",
      "definition": "Requirement for engineers to be properly licensed in the specific jurisdiction where they practice or present engineering work",
      "derived_from_principle": "Professional Integrity and Legal Compliance",
      "duty_type": "legal",
      "enforcement_mechanism": "State licensing boards, legal penalties, professional sanctions",
      "violation_consequences": "Legal prosecution for unlicensed practice, professional sanctions, project invalidation",
      "examples_from_case": ["Engineer H presenting engineering work in State I without being licensed there"],
      "source_text": "R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O",
      "confidence": 0.9,
      "reasoning": "This represents a specific legal requirement about practicing in proper jurisdictions, distinct from general competence obligations"
    },
    {
      "label": "Environmental Risk Assessment Obligation",
      "definition": "Duty to thoroughly evaluate and address environmental risks including historical site conditions and potential contamination pathways",
      "derived_from_principle": "Environmental Protection and Public Welfare",
      "duty_type": "professional",
      "enforcement_mechanism": "Environmental regulations, professional standards, public hearings",
      "violation_consequences": "Environmental damage, public health risks, professional liability",
      "examples_from_case": ["Evaluating historical fill material", "Assessing tank proximity to waterways"],
      "source_text": "testifies as a member of the public about concerns with fill material and its characteristics, potential of underground tanks to leak",
      "confidence": 0.85,
      "reasoning": "Goes beyond general safety obligations to specifically address environmental risk assessment duties"
    }
  ],
  "obligation_individuals": [
    {
      "identifier": "H_Licensure_StateI",
      "obligation_class": "Jurisdictional Licensure Obligation",
      "obligated_party": "Engineer H",
      "obligation_statement": "Must be licensed in State I to present engineering work to State I Drainage Board",
      "derived_from": "State I Professional Engineering Law",
      "enforcement_context": "State licensing board enforcement",
      "temporal_scope": "Before presenting at public hearing",
      "compliance_status": "unmet",
      "case_context": "H presented project for approval while licensed only in State O",
      "source_text": "Engineer H is employed by firm C and will present the project for approval by the county drainage board",
      "is_existing_class": false,
      "confidence": 0.95
    },
    {
      "identifier": "H_Environmental_Assessment",
      "obligation_class": "Environmental Risk Assessment Obligation",
      "obligated_party": "Engineer H/Firm C",
      "obligation_statement": "Must thoroughly assess environmental risks including site history and tank placement risks",
      "derived_from": "Professional Engineering Standards",
      "enforcement_context": "Drainage Board review process",
      "temporal_scope": "During project design and presentation",
      "compliance_status": "unclear",
      "case_context": "H addressed some concerns but tanks remained in risky location",
      "source_text": "H stated the tanks were set back substantially from the creek due to the large site plan",
      "is_existing_class": false,
      "confidence": 0.8
    },
    {
      "identifier": "R_Public_Safety_Disclosure",
      "obligation_class": "Disclosure Obligation",
      "obligated_party": "Engineer R",
      "obligation_statement": "Disclose known safety and environmental risks to appropriate authorities",
      "derived_from": "NSPE Code - Public Welfare",
      "enforcement_context": "Public hearing testimony",
      "temporal_scope": "Upon learning of risks",
      "compliance_status": "met",
      "case_context": "R testified at public hearing about environmental concerns",
      "source_text": "Engineer R testifies as a member of the public about concerns with fill material",
      "is_existing_class": true,
      "confidence": 0.95
    },
    {
      "identifier": "FirmC_Competent_Personnel",
      "obligation_class": "Competence Obligation",
      "obligated_party": "Firm C",
      "obligation_statement": "Ensure personnel presenting work are properly licensed in jurisdiction",
      "derived_from": "Professional Standards",
      "enforcement_context": "State licensing requirements",
      "temporal_scope": "Before public presentations",
      "compliance_status": "unmet",
      "case_context": "Firm C had unlicensed engineer present in State I",
      "source_text": "Engineer H is employed by firm C and will present the project",
      "is_existing_class": true,
      "confidence": 0.9
    },
    {
      "identifier": "H_Safety_Priority",
      "obligation_class": "Safety Obligation",
      "obligated_party": "Engineer H",
      "obligation_statement": "Hold paramount public safety regarding fuel tank placement near waterway",
      "derived_from": "NSPE I.1",
      "enforcement_context": "Professional standards and environmental regulations",
      "temporal_scope": "Throughout project design",
      "compliance_status": "unclear",
      "case_context": "Tank locations not changed despite known risks",
      "source_text": "After construction begins, R observes the tank locations were not changed",
      "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: Engineer R, a licensed professional engineer in State I with extensive knowledge of environmental regulation learns that a ZZZ Truck Stop will be constructed adjacent to a waterway, specifically a creek; the proposed truck stop is quite close to the location where the creek discharges into a major river in the state. R is aware that the site was used in the past for what would today be characterized as an illegal fill; however, the site was not regulated while it was filled. The county surveyor corroborated R’s observations but confirmed that filling occurred before current regulations were in place. As a result of the fill, the proposed construction site is not in a flood plain. Engineer R sees plans for the truck stop and learns the underground fuel storage tanks will be located close to the creek. Firm C is in a national partnership with ZZZ, and it provides a wide array of site services including taking a project from conceptual site layout through the final design of grading, utilities, and stormwater for complex spaces like the truck stop. Engineer H is employed by firm C and will present the project for approval by the county drainage board at a public hearing. Engineer R testifies as a member of the public about concerns with fill material and its characteristics, potential of underground tanks to leak, and the proximity of tanks to the creek , acknowledges that in its present condition, the site technically complies with floodplain requirements, but requests the Drainage Board and ZZZ’s design firm take into consideration the site history and asks that they look for a different location for the fuel storage tanks. R also points out that analysis of State I’s Department of Environmental Management Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database shows that 6% of the underground tanks installed in the previous 5 years experienced a reportable leak or spill. Following up R’s presentation, the Drainage Board vice president asks Engineer H about R’s testimony. H stated the tanks were set back substantially from the creek due to the large site plan. H also indicated the site’s grading is designed so that if a surface spill occurred, the spill would flow back to the pavement area and not directly toward the creek. Person B, a representative of ZZZ, also responded and pointed out that fuel storage tanks were generally placed where they have good access for tanker trucks and there is a reasonable run for the fuel lines to the dispensing pumps. Person B said they would speak with their environmental team to see if there are any other measures they can take. The Drainage Board vice president thanked all for their testimony and then the Drainage Board voted to approve the plan. After construction begins, R observes the tank locations were not changed. R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O. 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: 2025-12-29 16:55
LLM Response
```json
{
  "new_constraint_classes": [
    {
      "label": "Environmental Legacy Constraint",
      "definition": "Limitations arising from historical environmental conditions or past land use that affect current development options, even when not legally regulated",
      "constraint_type": "physical",
      "flexibility": "hard",
      "violation_impact": "Potential environmental contamination, groundwater pollution, or structural instability",
      "mitigation_possible": "Can be addressed through remediation, alternative siting, or engineering controls",
      "examples_from_case": ["Past illegal fill material affecting site characteristics", "Historical site conditions influencing tank placement decisions"],
      "source_text": "the site was used in the past for what would today be characterized as an illegal fill; however, the site was not regulated while it was filled",
      "confidence": 0.85,
      "reasoning": "Represents constraints from historical environmental conditions that are not covered by current regulations but still impose physical limitations on development"
    },
    {
      "label": "Site Access Constraint",
      "definition": "Physical limitations on placement of infrastructure based on vehicular access requirements and operational logistics",
      "constraint_type": "physical",
      "flexibility": "negotiable",
      "violation_impact": "Operational inefficiency, increased costs, or inability to service infrastructure",
      "mitigation_possible": "Can be mitigated through alternative routing or engineering solutions",
      "examples_from_case": ["Fuel tanks placement limited by tanker truck access", "Reasonable run requirements for fuel lines to pumps"],
      "source_text": "fuel storage tanks were generally placed where they have good access for tanker trucks and there is a reasonable run for the fuel lines to the dispensing pumps",
      "confidence": 0.80,
      "reasoning": "Distinct from general resource constraints as it specifically addresses physical access requirements that limit infrastructure placement options"
    }
  ],
  "constraint_individuals": [
    {
      "identifier": "State_I_Licensure_Requirement",
      "constraint_class": "Legal Constraint",
      "constrained_entity": "Engineer H",
      "constraint_statement": "Cannot practice engineering in State I without State I license",
      "source": "State I professional engineering licensure law",
      "enforcement_mechanism": "State licensing board enforcement",
      "temporal_scope": "Continuous while practicing in State I",
      "severity": "critical",
      "case_context": "Engineer H presented project to county drainage board without State I license",
      "source_text": "Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O",
      "is_existing_class": true,
      "confidence": 0.95
    },
    {
      "identifier": "Floodplain_Regulatory_Boundary",
      "constraint_class": "Regulatory Constraint",
      "constrained_entity": "ZZZ Truck Stop construction",
      "constraint_statement": "Construction must comply with floodplain requirements",
      "source": "County/State floodplain regulations",
      "enforcement_mechanism": "County drainage board approval process",
      "temporal_scope": "During planning and construction phases",
      "severity": "major",
      "case_context": "Site technically complies due to historical fill raising elevation",
      "source_text": "the site technically complies with floodplain requirements",
      "is_existing_class": true,
      "confidence": 0.90
    },
    {
      "identifier": "Historical_Fill_Physical_Limitation",
      "constraint_class": "Environmental Legacy Constraint",
      "constrained_entity": "Underground fuel storage tanks",
      "constraint_statement": "Unknown fill material characteristics limit safe placement options near waterway",
      "source": "Historical site conditions from unregulated filling",
      "enforcement_mechanism": "Professional engineering judgment and environmental risk assessment",
      "temporal_scope": "Permanent site condition",
      "severity": "major",
      "case_context": "Past illegal fill creates uncertainty about soil stability and contamination potential",
      "source_text": "concerns with fill material and its characteristics",
      "is_existing_class": false,
      "confidence": 0.85
    },
    {
      "identifier": "Tank_Access_Logistics_Requirement",
      "constraint_class": "Site Access Constraint",
      "constrained_entity": "Fuel storage tank placement",
      "constraint_statement": "Tanks must be accessible to tanker trucks with reasonable fuel line runs to pumps",
      "source": "Operational requirements for fuel delivery and distribution",
      "enforcement_mechanism": "Practical operational necessity",
      "temporal_scope": "Permanent operational requirement",
      "severity": "major",
      "case_context": "Limits flexibility in relocating tanks away from creek",
      "source_text": "good access for tanker trucks and there is a reasonable run for the fuel lines",
      "is_existing_class": false,
      "confidence": 0.80
    },
    {
      "identifier": "Creek_Proximity_Safety_Boundary",
      "constraint_class": "Safety Constraint",
      "constrained_entity": "Underground fuel storage tanks",
      "constraint_statement": "Tanks should maintain safe distance from creek to prevent contamination",
      "source": "Environmental safety best practices",
      "enforcement_mechanism": "Professional engineering standards and environmental protection",
      "temporal_scope": "Permanent installation requirement",
      "severity": "critical",
      "case_context": "Tanks placed close to creek despite 6% leak rate in similar installations",
      "source_text": "underground fuel storage tanks will be located close to the creek",
      "is_existing_class": true,
      "confidence": 0.90
    },
    {
      "identifier": "Public_Hearing_Procedural_Requirement",
      "constraint_class": "Procedural Constraint",
      "constrained_entity": "Project approval process",
      "constraint_statement": "Project must be presented at public hearing for drainage board approval",
      "source": "County drainage board procedures",
      "enforcement_mechanism": "Administrative requirement for project approval",
      "temporal_scope": "Prior to construction approval",
      "severity": "major",
      "case_context": "Engineer H presented project at public hearing where Engineer R testified",
      "source_text": "will present the project for approval by the county drainage board at a public hearing",
      "is_existing_class": true,
      "confidence": 0.95
    }
  ]
}
```
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 R, a licensed professional engineer in State I with extensive knowledge of environmental regulation learns that a ZZZ Truck Stop will be constructed adjacent to a waterway, specifically a creek; the proposed truck stop is quite close to the location where the creek discharges into a major river in the state. R is aware that the site was used in the past for what would today be characterized as an illegal fill; however, the site was not regulated while it was filled. The county surveyor corroborated R’s observations but confirmed that filling occurred before current regulations were in place. As a result of the fill, the proposed construction site is not in a flood plain. Engineer R sees plans for the truck stop and learns the underground fuel storage tanks will be located close to the creek. Firm C is in a national partnership with ZZZ, and it provides a wide array of site services including taking a project from conceptual site layout through the final design of grading, utilities, and stormwater for complex spaces like the truck stop. Engineer H is employed by firm C and will present the project for approval by the county drainage board at a public hearing. Engineer R testifies as a member of the public about concerns with fill material and its characteristics, potential of underground tanks to leak, and the proximity of tanks to the creek , acknowledges that in its present condition, the site technically complies with floodplain requirements, but requests the Drainage Board and ZZZ’s design firm take into consideration the site history and asks that they look for a different location for the fuel storage tanks. R also points out that analysis of State I’s Department of Environmental Management Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database shows that 6% of the underground tanks installed in the previous 5 years experienced a reportable leak or spill. Following up R’s presentation, the Drainage Board vice president asks Engineer H about R’s testimony. H stated the tanks were set back substantially from the creek due to the large site plan. H also indicated the site’s grading is designed so that if a surface spill occurred, the spill would flow back to the pavement area and not directly toward the creek. Person B, a representative of ZZZ, also responded and pointed out that fuel storage tanks were generally placed where they have good access for tanker trucks and there is a reasonable run for the fuel lines to the dispensing pumps. Person B said they would speak with their environmental team to see if there are any other measures they can take. The Drainage Board vice president thanked all for their testimony and then the Drainage Board voted to approve the plan. After construction begins, R observes the tank locations were not changed. R also learns that Engineer H is not licensed in State I, but is licensed in State O. 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: 2025-12-29 16:55
LLM Response
```json
{
  "new_capability_classes": [
    {
      "label": "Environmental Impact Assessment Capability",
      "definition": "The competency to evaluate and communicate potential environmental risks and impacts of engineering projects, including historical site conditions and contamination risks",
      "capability_type": "analytical",
      "norm_competence_related": "Enables fulfillment of obligations to protect public health, safety, and environmental welfare",
      "skill_level": "advanced",
      "acquisition_method": "Specialized environmental engineering education, field experience, regulatory knowledge training",
      "examples_from_case": ["Analyzing fill material characteristics", "Assessing underground tank leak potential"],
      "source_text": "testifies as a member of the public about concerns with fill material and its characteristics, potential of underground tanks to leak",
      "confidence": 0.85,
      "reasoning": "Distinct from general regulatory compliance - focuses specifically on environmental risk assessment and historical site analysis capabilities"
    },
    {
      "label": "Public Testimony Capability",
      "definition": "The competency to effectively present technical concerns and recommendations in public forums and regulatory hearings",
      "capability_type": "communicative",
      "norm_competence_related": "Enables engineers to fulfill civic duty to inform public decision-making on technical matters",
      "skill_level": "intermediate",
      "acquisition_method": "Professional experience, public speaking training, participation in regulatory proceedings",
      "examples_from_case": ["Testifying at drainage board hearing", "Presenting technical concerns to public officials"],
      "source_text": "Engineer R testifies as a member of the public about concerns with fill material",
      "confidence": 0.9,
      "reasoning": "Not covered by existing Technical Writing or general communication capabilities - specific to public forum testimony"
    },
    {
      "label": "Site History Investigation Capability",
      "definition": "The competency to research and analyze historical land use and environmental conditions that may impact current engineering projects",
      "capability_type": "analytical",
      "norm_competence_related": "Enables identification of latent risks and fulfillment of due diligence obligations",
      "skill_level": "advanced",
      "acquisition_method": "Experience in environmental due diligence, training in historical records research, field investigation methods",
      "examples_from_case": ["Identifying past illegal fill activities", "Corroborating observations with county surveyor"],
      "source_text": "R is aware that the site was used in the past for what would today be characterized as an illegal fill",
      "confidence": 0.8,
      "reasoning": "Specific historical investigation competency not covered by existing capability classes"
    }
  ],
  "capability_individuals": [
    {
      "identifier": "R_Environmental_Regulation_Knowledge",
      "capability_class": "Regulatory Compliance Capability",
      "possessed_by": "Engineer R",
      "capability_statement": "Extensive knowledge of environmental regulation",
      "demonstrated_through": "Professional experience and licensing in State I",
      "proficiency_level": "expert",
      "enables_obligations": "Identifying regulatory compliance issues and potential environmental risks",
      "temporal_aspect": "Applied during project review and public testimony",
      "case_context": "Used to identify concerns with underground tank placement near waterway",
      "source_text": "Engineer R, a licensed professional engineer in State I with extensive knowledge of environmental regulation",
      "is_existing_class": true,
      "confidence": 0.95
    },
    {
      "identifier": "R_Environmental_Impact_Assessment",
      "capability_class": "Environmental Impact Assessment Capability",
      "possessed_by": "Engineer R",
      "capability_statement": "Assess environmental risks from underground storage tanks and fill materials",
      "demonstrated_through": "Analysis of leak database showing 6% failure rate",
      "proficiency_level": "expert",
      "enables_obligations": "Protecting public health and environmental safety",
      "temporal_aspect": "During project review and public hearing",
      "case_context": "Identified specific risks of tank placement near creek with historical fill",
      "source_text": "analysis of State I's Department of Environmental Management Leaking Underground Storage Tank Database shows that 6% of the underground tanks",
      "is_existing_class": false,
      "confidence": 0.9
    },
    {
      "identifier": "H_Site_Design_Capability",
      "capability_class": "Technical Capability",
      "possessed_by": "Engineer H",
      "capability_statement": "Design complex site layouts including grading, utilities, and stormwater management",
      "demonstrated_through": "Employment at Firm C and project presentation",
      "proficiency_level": "advanced",
      "enables_obligations": "Creating functional and compliant site designs",
      "temporal_aspect": "During project design and approval process",
      "case_context": "Designed truck stop site with consideration for spill containment",
      "source_text": "taking a project from conceptual site layout through the final design of grading, utilities, and stormwater",
      "is_existing_class": true,
      "confidence": 0.85
    },
    {
      "identifier": "R_Public_Testimony",
      "capability_class": "Public Testimony Capability",
      "possessed_by": "Engineer R",
      "capability_statement": "Present technical concerns effectively in public drainage board hearing",
      "demonstrated_through": "Testimony at public hearing with specific technical evidence",
      "proficiency_level": "advanced",
      "enables_obligations": "Informing public decision-making on engineering matters",
      "temporal_aspect": "During public hearing for project approval",
      "case_context": "Presented environmental concerns and requested alternative tank locations",
      "source_text": "Engineer R testifies as a member of the public about concerns",
      "is_existing_class": false,
      "confidence": 0.88
    },
    {
      "identifier": "R_Site_History_Investigation",
      "capability_class": "Site History Investigation Capability",
      "possessed_by": "Engineer R",
      "capability_statement": "Research and identify historical site conditions affecting current projects",
      "demonstrated_through": "Identification of past illegal fill and corroboration with county surveyor",
      "proficiency_level": "advanced",
      "enables_obligations": "Due diligence in identifying latent site risks",
      "temporal_aspect": "Prior to and during project review",
      "case_context": "Identified historical illegal fill that could impact tank safety",
      "source_text": "The county surveyor corroborated R's observations but confirmed that filling occurred before current regulations",
      "is_existing_class": false,
      "confidence": 0.82
    }
  ]
}
```