Step 2: Normative Requirements Pass (Facts Section)
Extract principles, obligations, constraints, and capabilities from the facts section
Review of Other Engineer’s Work
Step 2 of 5
Facts Section
Section Content:
Facts: Client A is a city which receives consulting engineering services from a selected private firm. The contract runs for 3 years. Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract. The City Administrator leads the effort for the city to coordinate the work of Engineer B. The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract. The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions during the contract period. The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C. The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City. Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract. Engineer C answers the City Administrator’s questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B’s decisions.
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:
Client A is a city which receives consulting engineering services from a selected private firm. The contract runs for 3 years. Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract. The City Administrator leads the effort for the city to coordinate the work of Engineer B. The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract. The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions during the contract period. The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C. The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City. Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract. Engineer C answers the City Administrator’s questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B’s decisions.
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 20:08
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_principle_classes": [
{
"label": "Professional Collegiality",
"definition": "Principle that professionals should maintain respectful relationships with peers and avoid undermining colleagues for personal gain",
"abstract_nature": "Professional solidarity and mutual respect among practitioners",
"extensional_examples": ["Peer review processes", "Professional references", "Competitive bidding situations", "Consultation requests about another's work"],
"value_basis": "Respect for professional dignity and collective professional integrity",
"application_context": ["Competitive bidding", "Professional evaluations", "Consulting transitions", "Peer assessments"],
"operationalization": "Through constructive criticism, fair evaluation, avoiding opportunistic criticism, maintaining professional courtesy",
"balancing_requirements": ["Honesty", "Client interests", "Professional advancement", "Public welfare"],
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer C criticizes Engineer B's decisions when contacted by City Administrator", "competitive context for next contract creates tension"],
"source_text": "Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions"
},
{
"label": "Fair Competition",
"definition": "Principle that professional competition should be based on merit and qualifications rather than undermining competitors",
"abstract_nature": "Justice and fairness in professional marketplace",
"extensional_examples": ["Bidding processes", "Contract competitions", "Professional selections", "Marketing practices"],
"value_basis": "Equal opportunity and merit-based selection",
"application_context": ["Contract bidding", "Professional services procurement", "Consultant selection", "Business development"],
"operationalization": "Through transparent selection criteria, avoiding unfair advantages, competing on qualifications and proposals",
"balancing_requirements": ["Business interests", "Client relationships", "Professional advancement", "Market dynamics"],
"examples_from_case": ["Competition for next 3-year contract", "Engineer C realizes answering questions could provide competitive advantage"],
"source_text": "Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract"
}
],
"principle_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "Integrity_EngineerC_Decision",
"principle_class": "Integrity Principle",
"concrete_expression": "Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage",
"invoked_by": ["Case narrative (implicit to Engineer C's awareness)"],
"applied_to": ["Decision to answer City Administrator's questions about Engineer B's work"],
"interpretation": "Integrity requires honest assessment without opportunistic criticism for competitive advantage",
"source_text": "Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract",
"balancing_with": ["Business interests", "Client service", "Professional honesty"],
"tension_resolution": "Engineer C chooses to answer and be critical despite awareness of competitive advantage",
"case_relevance": "Central to evaluating ethical propriety of Engineer C's actions"
},
{
"identifier": "Competence_CityAdmin_Challenge",
"principle_class": "Competence Principle",
"concrete_expression": "The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions",
"invoked_by": ["City Administrator"],
"applied_to": ["Engineer B's professional decisions and judgment"],
"interpretation": "Questions about professional competence and judgment quality in service delivery",
"source_text": "The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions during the contract period",
"balancing_with": ["Professional autonomy", "Contract obligations"],
"tension_resolution": "Unresolved - leads to seeking external opinion from Engineer C",
"case_relevance": "Establishes context for why City Administrator seeks second opinion"
},
{
"identifier": "Confidentiality_EngineerB_Work",
"principle_class": "Confidentiality Principle",
"concrete_expression": "The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on",
"invoked_by": ["Implicit in professional relationship"],
"applied_to": ["Engineer B's work product and decisions for the city"],
"interpretation": "Whether discussing another engineer's specific work without their knowledge violates professional confidentiality",
"source_text": "The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City",
"balancing_with": ["Client's right to seek second opinions", "Public interest"],
"tension_resolution": "Not explicitly resolved - Engineer C proceeds to discuss Engineer B's work",
"case_relevance": "Raises questions about propriety of discussing colleague's work without their involvement"
}
]
}
```
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:
Client A is a city which receives consulting engineering services from a selected private firm. The contract runs for 3 years. Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract. The City Administrator leads the effort for the city to coordinate the work of Engineer B. The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract. The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions during the contract period. The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C. The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City. Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract. Engineer C answers the City Administrator’s questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B’s decisions.
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 20:08
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_obligation_classes": [
{
"label": "Fair Competition Obligation",
"definition": "Duty to compete fairly for contracts without undermining competitors through improper criticism or exploitation of privileged access",
"derived_from_principle": "Fairness and Professional Integrity",
"duty_type": "professional",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Professional ethics boards, contract dispute resolution, industry sanctions",
"violation_consequences": "Loss of professional reputation, exclusion from future contracts, ethics violations",
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer C criticizing Engineer B's decisions to gain competitive advantage", "Using questioning as pretext for contract advantage"],
"source_text": "Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition",
"confidence": 0.85,
"reasoning": "Existing collegial obligations focus on peer respect but don't specifically address competitive fairness in contract bidding situations"
},
{
"label": "Non-Interference Obligation",
"definition": "Duty to refrain from interfering with another professional's ongoing client relationship or contract performance",
"derived_from_principle": "Professional Respect and Client Relations",
"duty_type": "professional",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Professional conduct boards, industry standards enforcement",
"violation_consequences": "Ethics violations, damage to professional relationships, potential legal action for interference",
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer C commenting on Engineer B's ongoing work", "Responding to questions about another engineer's active contract work"],
"source_text": "The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City",
"confidence": 0.80,
"reasoning": "While collegial obligations exist, they don't specifically address interference with active client relationships"
}
],
"obligation_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "EngineerC_FairCompetition_CityContract",
"obligation_class": "Fair Competition Obligation",
"obligated_party": "Engineer C",
"obligation_statement": "Must not use improper criticism of Engineer B to gain competitive advantage for next contract",
"derived_from": "Professional ethics standards",
"enforcement_context": "Contract selection process and professional ethics review",
"temporal_scope": "During contract competition period",
"compliance_status": "unmet",
"case_context": "Engineer C criticized Engineer B's decisions knowing it would advantage their firm in competition",
"source_text": "Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.90
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerC_NonInterference_ActiveContract",
"obligation_class": "Non-Interference Obligation",
"obligated_party": "Engineer C",
"obligation_statement": "Should not comment on Engineer B's ongoing contract work without proper justification",
"derived_from": "Professional conduct standards",
"enforcement_context": "Professional ethics enforcement",
"temporal_scope": "While Engineer B's contract is active",
"compliance_status": "unmet",
"case_context": "Engineer C answered questions about Engineer B's active work despite knowing the improper context",
"source_text": "Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.85
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerC_Collegial_PeerRespect",
"obligation_class": "Collegial Obligation",
"obligated_party": "Engineer C",
"obligation_statement": "Must show professional respect and fairness toward Engineer B as a peer",
"derived_from": "NSPE Code of Ethics",
"enforcement_context": "Professional ethics board review",
"temporal_scope": "Ongoing professional relationship",
"compliance_status": "unmet",
"case_context": "Engineer C failed to maintain collegial respect by criticizing Engineer B's work improperly",
"source_text": "Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions...and is critical of Engineer B's decisions",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.95
},
{
"identifier": "CityAdmin_Disclosure_ConflictOfInterest",
"obligation_class": "Disclosure Obligation",
"obligated_party": "City Administrator",
"obligation_statement": "Should disclose potential conflicts in seeking external opinions on current contractor's work",
"derived_from": "Public sector ethics standards",
"enforcement_context": "Municipal ethics oversight",
"temporal_scope": "During contract period and selection process",
"compliance_status": "unclear",
"case_context": "City Administrator contacted competing firm without clear disclosure of intent or process",
"source_text": "The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.75
}
]
}
```
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:
Client A is a city which receives consulting engineering services from a selected private firm. The contract runs for 3 years. Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract. The City Administrator leads the effort for the city to coordinate the work of Engineer B. The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract. The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions during the contract period. The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C. The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City. Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract. Engineer C answers the City Administrator’s questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B’s decisions.
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 20:09
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_constraint_classes": [
{
"label": "Contractual Term Constraint",
"definition": "Temporal boundaries established by fixed-term contracts that limit the duration of professional relationships and create windows for competitive transitions",
"constraint_type": "temporal",
"flexibility": "hard",
"violation_impact": "Breach of contract, legal liability, loss of professional standing",
"mitigation_possible": "Can be extended through contract renewal or renegotiation",
"examples_from_case": ["3-year contract term limiting Engineer B's engagement", "Final year creating competitive window"],
"source_text": "The contract runs for 3 years. Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract",
"confidence": 0.85,
"reasoning": "Differs from Resource Constraint by focusing on temporal boundaries of contractual relationships rather than resource availability"
},
{
"label": "Competitive Advantage Constraint",
"definition": "Ethical boundaries preventing professionals from exploiting competitive situations to unfairly disadvantage peers or gain improper business advantages",
"constraint_type": "procedural",
"flexibility": "soft",
"violation_impact": "Unfair competition, damaged professional relationships, potential ethics violations",
"mitigation_possible": "Can be addressed through disclosure, recusal, or limiting engagement scope",
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer C's awareness of competitive advantage", "Using criticism as pretext for contract gain"],
"source_text": "Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage",
"confidence": 0.9,
"reasoning": "Distinct from Ethical Constraint by specifically addressing competitive professional situations and business development boundaries"
}
],
"constraint_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "Three_Year_Contract_Term",
"constraint_class": "Contractual Term Constraint",
"constrained_entity": "Engineer B",
"constraint_statement": "Cannot provide services beyond the 3-year contract period without renewal",
"source": "City consulting contract",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Contract expiration and competitive bidding process",
"temporal_scope": "3-year fixed term, currently in final year",
"severity": "critical",
"case_context": "Creates vulnerability for Engineer B and opportunity window for competitors",
"source_text": "The contract runs for 3 years. Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.95
},
{
"identifier": "Peer_Criticism_Boundary",
"constraint_class": "Competitive Advantage Constraint",
"constrained_entity": "Engineer C",
"constraint_statement": "Should not criticize peer's work when aware it provides competitive advantage",
"source": "Professional ethics standards",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Professional ethics review and peer accountability",
"temporal_scope": "During competitive bidding period",
"severity": "major",
"case_context": "Engineer C violates this constraint by criticizing Engineer B while seeking contract",
"source_text": "Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.88
},
{
"identifier": "Information_Disclosure_Limit",
"constraint_class": "Confidentiality Constraint",
"constrained_entity": "City Administrator",
"constraint_statement": "Should not share specific project details with competing firms during active contract",
"source": "Standard confidentiality practices",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Contract terms and professional standards",
"temporal_scope": "During active contract period",
"severity": "major",
"case_context": "City Administrator potentially violates by discussing Engineer B's work with Engineer C",
"source_text": "The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.82
},
{
"identifier": "Competitive_Bidding_Timeline",
"constraint_class": "Procedural Constraint",
"constrained_entity": "City Administrator",
"constraint_statement": "Must follow proper procurement procedures for selecting next consulting firm",
"source": "Municipal procurement regulations",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Municipal oversight and audit procedures",
"temporal_scope": "During selection process for next 3-year contract",
"severity": "critical",
"case_context": "Administrator's early engagement with Engineer C may violate procurement procedures",
"source_text": "The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.75
}
]
}
```
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:
Client A is a city which receives consulting engineering services from a selected private firm. The contract runs for 3 years. Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract. The City Administrator leads the effort for the city to coordinate the work of Engineer B. The City Administrator will also be heavily involved in the effort to select the consulting firm for the next 3-year contract. The City Administrator has questioned the judgment of Engineer B on several occasions during the contract period. The City Administrator also has previous experiences with a competing firm, Engineer C. The City Administrator contacts Engineer C to question him on specific issues Engineer B has worked on for the City. Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage in the competition for the next 3-year contract. Engineer C answers the City Administrator’s questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B’s decisions.
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 20:09
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_capability_classes": [
{
"label": "Competitive Intelligence Ethics Capability",
"definition": "The competency to navigate requests for professional opinions about competitors' work while maintaining ethical boundaries and avoiding unfair competitive advantage",
"capability_type": "ethical",
"norm_competence_related": "Enables compliance with fair competition norms and professional courtesy obligations",
"skill_level": "advanced",
"acquisition_method": "Professional experience, ethics training, mentorship in competitive situations",
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer C being asked to evaluate Engineer B's work", "Recognizing that answering could provide competitive advantage"],
"source_text": "Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage",
"confidence": 0.85,
"reasoning": "Not covered by existing capabilities - specifically addresses ethical competency in competitive professional situations where one is asked to evaluate competitor's work"
},
{
"label": "Professional Critique Capability",
"definition": "The competency to provide objective, constructive evaluation of another professional's work without undermining their reputation or engaging in unfair criticism",
"capability_type": "communicative",
"norm_competence_related": "Enables fulfillment of professional courtesy obligations and maintaining integrity in peer review",
"skill_level": "expert",
"acquisition_method": "Professional experience, peer review training, ethics education",
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer C being critical of Engineer B's decisions", "City Administrator questioning Engineer B's judgment"],
"source_text": "Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions",
"confidence": 0.75,
"reasoning": "Distinct from Technical Writing - focuses on ethical and professional aspects of critiquing peers' work"
}
],
"capability_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "EngineerB_ConsultingEngineering_Capability",
"capability_class": "Technical Capability",
"possessed_by": "Engineer B",
"capability_statement": "Provide consulting engineering services to municipal clients",
"demonstrated_through": "3-year contract with the city",
"proficiency_level": "advanced",
"enables_obligations": "Fulfillment of contractual engineering services to the city",
"temporal_aspect": "During the 3-year contract period",
"case_context": "Engineer B hired under contract terms to provide engineering services",
"source_text": "Engineer B is currently hired under these contract terms and is in the final year of the 3-year contract",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.95
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerC_CompetitiveIntelligence_Capability",
"capability_class": "Competitive Intelligence Ethics Capability",
"possessed_by": "Engineer C",
"capability_statement": "Recognize when providing professional opinions could create unfair competitive advantage",
"demonstrated_through": "Awareness of competitive implications when answering questions",
"proficiency_level": "intermediate",
"enables_obligations": "Should enable fair competition and professional courtesy obligations",
"temporal_aspect": "During pre-contract competition period",
"case_context": "Engineer C recognizes answering could provide competitive advantage but proceeds anyway",
"source_text": "Engineer C fully realizes that answering these questions in a certain perspective would be a pretext to gaining an advantage",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.9
},
{
"identifier": "CityAdministrator_ContractManagement_Capability",
"capability_class": "Technical Capability",
"possessed_by": "City Administrator",
"capability_statement": "Coordinate and oversee consulting engineering contracts",
"demonstrated_through": "Leading coordination of Engineer B's work and selection process",
"proficiency_level": "advanced",
"enables_obligations": "Municipal contract management and vendor selection duties",
"temporal_aspect": "Throughout contract period and selection process",
"case_context": "City Administrator coordinates Engineer B's work and leads selection for next contract",
"source_text": "The City Administrator leads the effort for the city to coordinate the work of Engineer B",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.85
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerC_ProfessionalCritique_Capability",
"capability_class": "Professional Critique Capability",
"possessed_by": "Engineer C",
"capability_statement": "Evaluate and critique another engineer's technical decisions",
"demonstrated_through": "Providing critical assessment of Engineer B's work to City Administrator",
"proficiency_level": "intermediate",
"enables_obligations": "Should enable objective peer review without unfair criticism",
"temporal_aspect": "During inquiry by City Administrator",
"case_context": "Engineer C provides critical evaluation of Engineer B's decisions when questioned",
"source_text": "Engineer C answers the City Administrator's questions on the specific issues and is critical of Engineer B's decisions",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.8
}
]
}
```