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 overriding issue for the Board of Ethical Review (BER) to consider in this case is that of the actions of Firm DBA. The ethical requirements of Firm DBA must be clarified before establishing what actions are required by Engineer M. As stated, Firm DBA provided a report that omitted details about where the sessions were held and at what time of day the sessions were held, including not identifying that written comments were not accepted. Additionally, Firm DBA’s report claimed Community P supported the project, without any evidence to support that claim. These actions likely violated the NSPE Code of Ethics ( Code) regarding issuing statements in an objective and truthful manner, deceptive acts, misrepresentation of fact, and omitting a material fact However, does the Code apply to Firm DBA? If the individuals most heavily involved in the project at Firm DBA are Certified Public Relations Professionals, they would be held to a code of ethics that provides for honest and truthful conduct. However, the BER will not comment on these potential obligations, as it is beyond the BER’s duties to review other codes. In BER Case 60-3 , the facts indicated that an engineering firm was providing sub-professional services and, because of that, the firm was not required to abide by the provisions of the Canons of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct. The conclusion by the BER in BER Case 60-3 was that the Canons and Rules did not apply. However, the Code has been revised since that time. The most fundamental and primary Canon of the Code is to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. The facts in this case state that Firm DBA has licensed professional engineers in charge or in supervisory roles of all departments in the firm as well as ownership. It would be difficult to believe that through their duties as licensed professional engineers, the Code would be irrelevant to the Firm’s business dealings simply because the services being provided were not engineering from a design, calculation, or engineering judgment perspective but were confined to communication and public relation services. The Preamble of the Code of states that professional behavior requires adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct. Therefore, the Code applies to Firm DBA. BER Case 98-2 addressed the ethical concerns of an international NSPE member that encountered separate and conflicting legal and ethical issues working in a county other than the U.S. In that case the BER determined that the engineer was bound by the Code and stated that “it would be a major error for NSPE to apply one standard of conduct to one set of NSPE members and another standard of conduct to another set of NSPE members.” Although that case was based on geographical concerns rather than the type of services provided, it was determined that the Code applied to members universally. In BER Case 88-6 , Engineer A had the responsibility for a city’s waste disposal plant and is also directly responsible to City Administrator C. Engineer A informed City Administrator C of the inadequacy of the disposal plant in a certain potential scenario. City Administrator C told Engineer A to discuss this matter only with him and, subsequentially, removed Engineer A from responsibility of the disposal plant. Engineer A took no further action. The critical scenario did, in fact, happen and a release of partially-treated wastewater occurred. The BER found that Engineer A did not fulfill ethical obligations of holding paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. As in this case, Engineer M, therefore also has a duty to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public. In BER Case 09-10 , Engineer A owned ABC Engineering in State P. Engineer X owned XYZ Engineering in State Q. Engineer X was retained to provide engineering services for Client L located in State P for a project in State P. Client L was a former client of Engineer A’s firm. Engineer A learned that XYZ Engineering did not have a current certificate of authority to practice engineering in State P. The question to the BER was to evaluate what Engineer A’s ethical obligations would be under these facts. The BER found that Engineer A should communicate with Engineer X to obtain clarification regarding the matter in question. The BER further found that if Engineer A was not sufficiently satisfied with Engineer X’s explanation, Engineer A may be required to report this matter to the state engineering licensure board. In BER Case 21-7 , the question put to the BER was as follows: should an Engineer include information about the utility generation mix and rolling blackouts in the report to an organization? The BER found that as a registered professional, that Engineer was obliged to include relevant and pertinent information in a report to the organization. A report that does not contain relevant information will not help stakeholders make an informed decision and does not protect public safety, health, and welfare. Likewise, in this case, pertinent information was missing from the report. By this reasoning, Engineer M not only has the right to challenge the validity of the DBA report but also must consider their involvement in the project as they shall not permit the use of their name or associate in business ventures with any person or firm that they believe is engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise as stated in Code section II.1.d. The result of going forward with the project could also have disastrous consequences. If the facts come out later that relevant information was not disclosed in the report, the impact of such could be very negative. Again, Engineer M has an additional obligation to advise their clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful as stated in Code section III.1.b. As to a course of action, the BER recommends Engineer M to confer immediately with Firm DBA. Engineer M should state their objections with Firm DBA and express all ethical obligations under the Code. The licensed professional engineers of Firm DBA, because of their supervisory and ownership roles, should be involved in these discussions as they have the ultimate responsibility to see that ethical practices are followed. Should Firm DBA acknowledge their ethical obligations after being confronted by Engineer M, a more immediate resolution to the issues may be realized and Firm DBA could correct the discrepancies. A more unfavorable result would be anticipated if Firm DBA takes the position that it performed the work under the direction of the City and are, therefore, unwilling to make the corrections. Should Firm DBA choose not to correct the discrepancies, Engineer M would need to also confer with the City (with the knowledge and potential presence of Firm DBA) and have a discussion of the ethical obligations of all involved. After this meeting, if the City decided to do nothing, Engineer M must decide whether to report Firm DBA’s actions to the state’s engineering licensure board. Although seemingly extreme, reporting Firm DBA to the state’s engineering licensure board may be necessary to prevent similar situations from happening in the future. 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)