Step 1b: Contextual Framework Pass (Discussion)

EXISTING STATE CLASSES IN ONTOLOGY (DO NOT RE-EXTRACT THESE): STATE STATES: - AI Tool Inexperience State: A state where a professional is using AI tools without prior experience or full understanding of their functionality, accuracy, and limitations - AI Tool Reliance State: A state where a professional is using AI-generated content or tools for technical work without full verification processes - Certification Required State: Checkpoint state requiring formal validation processes - Client Risk Acceptance State: A state where a client has been fully informed of specific risks to vulnerable populations but chooses to proceed without mitigation measures - Climate Resilience Policy State: A state where an organization has formal policies requiring infrastructure projects to incorporate climate change resilience and sustainability considerations - Competing Duties State: State requiring ethical prioritization between conflicting obligations - Confidentiality Breach State: A state where client confidential information has been exposed to unauthorized parties or systems without prior consent - Conflict of Interest State: Professional situation where personal and professional interests compete - Disproportionate Impact Discovery State: A state where a professional has discovered that a proposed solution would disproportionately harm a specific vulnerable population under certain conditions - Insufficient Attribution State: A state where substantial contributions to work product from AI or other sources are not properly acknowledged or cited - Make Objective Truthful Statements: Requirement for honesty in professional communications - Mentor Absence State: A state where a professional lacks access to their established mentor or supervisor for guidance and quality assurance, affecting their confidence and work processes - Non-Compliant State: State requiring compliance remediation - Non-Compliant State: Problematic state requiring immediate corrective action - Objective and Truthful Statements: Requirement for honesty in professional communications - Professional Position Statement: Official position statements from professional organizations defining key concepts and standards - Provide Objective Statements: Professional communication standard - Public Statements: Requirement for honesty and objectivity in all public communications and professional statements - Regulatory Compliance State: Legal compliance context constraining actions - Stakeholder Division State: A state where stakeholder groups have expressed conflicting preferences for different technical solutions, creating competing pressures on professional decision-making - State: A quality representing conditions that affect ethical decisions and professional conduct. This is the S component of the formal specification D=(R,P,O,S,Rs,A,E,Ca,Cs). - Technical Writing Insecurity State: A state where a professional lacks confidence in a specific technical skill area despite having expertise in other aspects of their field IMPORTANT: Only extract NEW state types not listed above! You are analyzing a professional ethics case to extract both STATE CLASSES and STATE INSTANCES. DEFINITIONS: - STATE CLASS: A type of situational condition (e.g., "Conflict of Interest", "Emergency Situation", "Resource Constraint") - STATE INDIVIDUAL: A specific instance of a state active in this case attached to specific people/organizations CRITICAL REQUIREMENT: Every STATE CLASS you identify MUST be based on at least one specific STATE INDIVIDUAL instance in the case. You cannot propose a state class without providing the concrete instance(s) that demonstrate it. KEY INSIGHT FROM LITERATURE: States are not abstract - they are concrete conditions affecting specific actors at specific times. Each state has a subject (WHO is in the state), temporal boundaries (WHEN), and causal relationships (WHY). YOUR TASK - Extract two LINKED types of entities: 1. NEW STATE CLASSES (types not in the existing ontology above): - Novel types of situational states discovered in this case - Must be sufficiently general to apply to other cases - Should represent distinct environmental or contextual conditions - Consider both inertial (persistent) and non-inertial (momentary) fluents 2. STATE INDIVIDUALS (specific instances in this case): - Specific states active in this case narrative - MUST be attached to specific individuals or organizations in the case - Include temporal properties (when initiated, when terminated) - Include causal relationships (triggered by what event, affects which obligations) - Map to existing classes where possible, or to new classes you discover EXTRACTION GUIDELINES: For NEW STATE CLASSES, identify: - Label: Clear, professional name for the state type - Definition: What this state represents - Activation conditions: What events/conditions trigger this state - Termination conditions: What events/conditions end this state - Persistence type: "inertial" (persists until terminated) or "non-inertial" (momentary) - Affected obligations: Which professional duties does this state affect? - Temporal properties: How does this state evolve over time? - Domain context: Medical/Engineering/Legal/etc. - Examples from case: Specific instances showing this state type For STATE INDIVIDUALS, identify: - Identifier: Unique descriptor (e.g., "John_Smith_ConflictOfInterest_ProjectX") - State class: Which state type it represents (existing or new) - Subject: WHO is in this state (person/organization name from the case) - Initiated by: What event triggered this state? - Initiated at: When did this state begin? - Terminated by: What event ended this state (if applicable)? - Terminated at: When did this state end (if applicable)? - Affects obligations: Which specific obligations were affected? - Urgency/Intensity: Does this state's urgency change over time? - Related parties: Who else is affected by this state? - Case involvement: How this state affected the case outcome CASE TEXT FROM discussion SECTION: The Board of Ethical Review (BER) begin this discussion by reviewing the Fundamental Canons of the NSPE Code of Ethics (Code). Engineer K is hired by the City with a specific task in mind—design a new flood control system to protect a rapidly growing urban area; the goal of the completed system will be to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Engineer K, as a professional engineer, has an obligation to the City to act as a faithful agent or trustee. We will explore the distinction between an agent and trustee with a somewhat simplified description: If the City hires Engineer K and tells them what to do, then Engineer K is acting as the City’s agent—Engineer K should do what the city instructs them to do. If the City hires Engineer K and gives them discretion in how to complete a task, Engineer K is acting as a trustee — the City trusts that Engineer K will do the job as if they were doing it themselves. • If the City hires Engineer K and tells them what to do, then Engineer K is acting as the City’s agent—Engineer K should do what the city instructs them to do. • If the City hires Engineer K and gives them discretion in how to complete a task, Engineer K is acting as a trustee — the City trusts that Engineer K will do the job as if they were doing it themselves. During the design phase, the City trusts Engineer K to develop a design. What should be included in the design is where the analysis of the Code is required. Certainly, the system should be functional; any non-functional design brings into play the obligation to advise a client or employer if a project will not be successful under Code section III.1.b. When reporting about their design, Engineer K shall be objective and truthful in their professional reports, statements, or testimony. Per Code section II.3.a, they “shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports . . . .” Under Code section III.1.f, professional engineers shall treat all persons with dignity, respect, fairness, and without discrimination, and under Code section III.2.d, they are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development. The BER have referenced multiple Code citations, and there are others that could be added to the list. Generally, Engineer K should use all of their knowledge and ability to study the problem, develop solutions, and recommend to the City the option (or options) they believe are best. Engineer K has identified two options for the City to consider—the traditional approach and the sustainable approach. Each should be presented completely, and the advantages and disadvantages of each should be included. The BER reviewed an analogous situation in BER Case 21-7 , where an engineer was asked to prepare a report discussing replacement of a fossil-fueled electric generation facility with a system of solar panels. If a system of stand-alone solar panels is selected, the chance of power system unreliability may be increased. The discussion of this case noted the ethical objective of an informed policy and project decision making process; the engineer in BER Case 21-7 was obliged to include information about the potential for rolling blackouts if a reliable generation alternative was not selected. The additional cost to make the solar panel system more reliable by supplementing it with battery storage should be included in the engineer’s report. BER Case 22-10 also dealt with sustainability and the tradeoffs between traditional systems (in this case lawn irrigation) and sustainable options. BER Case 22-10 ’s discussion noted that Engineer Intern Wasser (an important player in BER Case 22-10 ) “could be in a unique position to meaningfully serve the client – and his company. By introducing and offering sustainable alternatives . . . , Wasser . . . can harmonize [Code sections] I.4 and III.2.d.” Engineers should take the opportunity to educate clients. In closing the discussion of BER Case 22-10 , the BER concluded: As was noted, engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees, but are encouraged to adhere to the principles of sustainable development. It is not enough to simply look at the situation and conclude an engineer’s obligation to the client/ employer takes precedence over the sustainable development principles. This case helps to illustrate that endeavoring to integrate all code of ethics provisions when developing a solution is critical. Suggesting sustainable options for an irrigation system as a means to resolving the ethical tension presented in this case is a path the BER endorses. Furthermore, suggesting sustainable options will inform the client; refusing to perform the task, or quitting, will not. The BER next turns to how Engineer K should address disproportionate impact. BER Case 15-12 discusses the tradeoffs involved with routing a highway. Certainly, highway routing concerns and disparate impact have been discussed at depth in the media, and there are several additional BER cases that discuss highway routing (BER Cases 65-9 and 73-9 ). The take aways from these cases are there is not necessarily one correct answer, and that engineers should be creative when looking at solutions. In BER Case 15-12 , the engineer was encouraged to think beyond the binary of tearing down the farmhouse or finding another highway route — could the farmhouse be relocated? This type of creative thinking is incumbent on Engineer K and their team when considering the impact of floodwaters on the underserved community. For example, analysis of whether some combination of the traditional approach (with a quick solution to the flooding problems) be used with sustainable provisions in the underserved community to mitigate the risk if a portion of the traditional system does not work. Ultimately, Engineer K will present the design alternatives to the City decision makers so they can make a choice. Once the decision is made, Engineer K should act as a faithful agent and follow the decision made by City officials. These officials serve at the will of the people and are ultimately accountable to the people for their decisions. Engineer K should respect that accountability and not be motivated by self-interest in a sustainable solution if the City decides against it. In fact, an effort to influence the award of a contract by a public authority would be a violation of Code section II.5.b. Respond with a JSON structure. Here's a CONCRETE EXAMPLE showing the required linkage: EXAMPLE (if the case mentions "Engineer A faced a conflict when discovering his brother worked for the contractor"): { "new_state_classes": [ { "label": "Family Conflict of Interest", "definition": "A state where a professional's family relationships create potential bias in professional decisions", "activation_conditions": ["Discovery of family member involvement", "Family member has financial interest"], "termination_conditions": ["Recusal from decision", "Family member withdraws"], "persistence_type": "inertial", "affected_obligations": ["Duty of impartiality", "Disclosure requirements"], "temporal_properties": "Persists until formally addressed through recusal or disclosure", "domain_context": "Engineering", "examples_from_case": ["Engineer A discovered brother worked for ABC Contractors"], "source_text": "Engineer A faced a conflict when discovering his brother worked for the contractor", "confidence": 0.85, "rationale": "Specific type of conflict not covered by general COI in existing ontology" } ], "state_individuals": [ { "identifier": "EngineerA_FamilyConflict_ABCContractors", "state_class": "Family Conflict of Interest", "subject": "Engineer A", "initiated_by": "Discovery that brother is senior manager at ABC Contractors", "initiated_at": "When bidding process began", "terminated_by": "Engineer A recused from contractor selection", "terminated_at": "Two weeks after discovery", "affects_obligations": ["Maintain impartial contractor selection", "Disclose conflicts to client"], "urgency_level": "high", "related_parties": ["Client B", "ABC Contractors", "Engineer A's brother"], "case_involvement": "Led to Engineer A's recusal from contractor selection process", "source_text": "Engineer A discovered his brother is senior manager at ABC Contractors during the bidding process", "is_existing_class": false, "confidence": 0.9 } ] } YOUR RESPONSE FORMAT (use the same structure with YOUR case's specific details): { "new_state_classes": [ // For each new state type you discover ], "state_individuals": [ // For each specific instance in the case (MUST have at least one per new class) ] } EXTRACTION RULES: 1. For EVERY new state class you identify, you MUST provide at least one corresponding state individual 2. State individuals MUST have a clear subject (specific person/organization from the case) 3. If you cannot identify a specific instance, do not create the state class 4. States without subjects are invalid (e.g., cannot have "general emergency" - must be "City M's water emergency") 5. Each state individual should clearly demonstrate why its state class is needed Focus on states that: 1. Are attached to specific individuals or organizations mentioned in the case 2. Have clear temporal boundaries (when initiated, when terminated) 3. Affect specific ethical obligations or professional duties 4. Show causal relationships with events in the case 5. Demonstrate the context-dependent nature of professional ethics EXAMPLE OF CORRECT EXTRACTION: State Class: "Public Health Risk State" State Individual: "City_M_PublicHealthRisk_2023" with subject="City M", initiated_by="Decision to change water source", affects_obligations=["Ensure public safety", "Provide clean water"] EXAMPLE OF INCORRECT EXTRACTION: State Class: "Emergency Situation" with NO corresponding individual (INVALID - no specific instance)