Step 2: Normative Requirements Pass (Facts Section)

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

Duty to Report – Material Information
Step 2 of 5

Facts Section

Section Content:
Facts:
Engineer Intern A is an unlicensed engineer in the DOT’s bridge inspection program under the supervision of Engineer B, a PE and state DOT director.
While reviewing the inspection report for a bridge, Engineer Intern A observed that an inspector under the supervision of Engineer Intern A had failed to report a visibly obvious defect in a concrete bridge member.
Concerned, Engineer Intern A reviewed the inspector’s reports and photographs going back five years and discovered that the same inspector had failed to report the same defect for at least five years.
Engineer Intern A reported the defect to Engineer B but did not report the fact that the defect had been visibly obvious for at least five years.
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 Intern A is an unlicensed engineer in the DOT’s bridge inspection program under the supervision of Engineer B, a PE and state DOT director. While reviewing the inspection report for a bridge, Engineer Intern A observed that an inspector under the supervision of Engineer Intern A had failed to report a visibly obvious defect in a concrete bridge member. Concerned, Engineer Intern A reviewed the inspector’s reports and photographs going back five years and discovered that the same inspector had failed to report the same defect for at least five years. Engineer Intern A reported the defect to Engineer B but did not report the fact that the defect had been visibly obvious for at least five years. 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 21:42
LLM Response
```json
{
    "new_principle_classes": [],
    "principle_individuals": [
        {
            "identifier": "PublicWelfare_BridgeSafety_Case",
            "principle_class": "Public Welfare Principle",
            "concrete_expression": "visibly obvious defect in a concrete bridge member",
            "invoked_by": ["Engineer Intern A"],
            "applied_to": ["bridge safety inspection and reporting"],
            "interpretation": "Public safety requires reporting structural defects that could endanger bridge users",
            "source_text": "visibly obvious defect in a concrete bridge member",
            "balancing_with": ["Professional hierarchy", "Organizational loyalty"],
            "tension_resolution": "Engineer Intern A partially resolved by reporting defect but not full history",
            "case_relevance": "Critical infrastructure safety directly impacts public welfare"
        },
        {
            "identifier": "Integrity_InspectionAccuracy_Case",
            "principle_class": "Integrity Principle",
            "concrete_expression": "failed to report a visibly obvious defect",
            "invoked_by": ["Implicit professional standards"],
            "applied_to": ["bridge inspection reporting practices"],
            "interpretation": "Professional integrity requires accurate and complete reporting of infrastructure conditions",
            "source_text": "failed to report a visibly obvious defect",
            "balancing_with": ["Organizational pressures", "Personal relationships"],
            "tension_resolution": "Inspector repeatedly violated integrity principle over five years",
            "case_relevance": "Systematic failure of integrity in inspection process"
        },
        {
            "identifier": "Transparency_FullDisclosure_Case",
            "principle_class": "Transparency Principle",
            "concrete_expression": "did not report the fact that the defect had been visibly obvious for at least five years",
            "invoked_by": ["Professional ethics standards"],
            "applied_to": ["Engineer Intern A's reporting to supervisor"],
            "interpretation": "Full transparency would require disclosing the complete history of the inspection failure",
            "source_text": "did not report the fact that the defect had been visibly obvious for at least five years",
            "balancing_with": ["Loyalty to colleague", "Fear of consequences", "Organizational hierarchy"],
            "tension_resolution": "Engineer Intern A chose partial disclosure over full transparency",
            "case_relevance": "Incomplete transparency may prevent proper accountability and systemic correction"
        },
        {
            "identifier": "Competence_SupervisoryOversight_Case",
            "principle_class": "Competence Principle",
            "concrete_expression": "inspector under the supervision of Engineer Intern A",
            "invoked_by": ["Professional responsibility framework"],
            "applied_to": ["supervisory relationship and quality control"],
            "interpretation": "Competent supervision requires verifying subordinates' work quality and accuracy",
            "source_text": "inspector under the supervision of Engineer Intern A",
            "balancing_with": ["Trust in subordinates", "Resource limitations"],
            "tension_resolution": "Engineer Intern A discovered failure through review process",
            "case_relevance": "Highlights importance of supervisory competence in ensuring inspection quality"
        }
    ]
}
```
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 Intern A is an unlicensed engineer in the DOT’s bridge inspection program under the supervision of Engineer B, a PE and state DOT director. While reviewing the inspection report for a bridge, Engineer Intern A observed that an inspector under the supervision of Engineer Intern A had failed to report a visibly obvious defect in a concrete bridge member. Concerned, Engineer Intern A reviewed the inspector’s reports and photographs going back five years and discovered that the same inspector had failed to report the same defect for at least five years. Engineer Intern A reported the defect to Engineer B but did not report the fact that the defect had been visibly obvious for at least five years. 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 21:43
LLM Response
```json
{
  "new_obligation_classes": [
    {
      "label": "Supervision Obligation",
      "definition": "Duty to provide adequate oversight, review, and guidance to subordinates and those working under one's professional supervision",
      "derived_from_principle": "Professional Responsibility",
      "duty_type": "professional",
      "enforcement_mechanism": "Professional board review, employment disciplinary action",
      "violation_consequences": "Disciplinary action, loss of supervisory privileges, liability for subordinate errors",
      "examples_from_case": ["Engineer B supervising Engineer Intern A", "Engineer Intern A supervising the inspector"],
      "source_text": "Engineer Intern A is an unlicensed engineer in the DOT's bridge inspection program under the supervision of Engineer B",
      "confidence": 0.9,
      "reasoning": "Distinct from collegial obligations as it involves hierarchical oversight duties not covered in existing ontology"
    },
    {
      "label": "Complete Reporting Obligation",
      "definition": "Duty to report all relevant facts and findings completely without selective omission of material information",
      "derived_from_principle": "Honesty and Integrity",
      "duty_type": "professional",
      "enforcement_mechanism": "Professional ethics review, employment policies",
      "violation_consequences": "Ethics violations, loss of trust, potential liability for incomplete disclosure",
      "examples_from_case": ["Engineer Intern A not reporting the five-year history of the defect"],
      "source_text": "reported the defect to Engineer B but did not report the fact that the defect had been visibly obvious for at least five years",
      "confidence": 0.85,
      "reasoning": "Goes beyond basic reporting obligation to require completeness and non-selective disclosure of material facts"
    }
  ],
  "obligation_individuals": [
    {
      "identifier": "EngineerB_Supervision_EngineerInternA",
      "obligation_class": "Supervision Obligation",
      "obligated_party": "Engineer B",
      "obligation_statement": "Provide adequate supervision to Engineer Intern A in bridge inspection program",
      "derived_from": "Professional engineering standards for supervising unlicensed engineers",
      "enforcement_context": "State DOT employment policies and PE licensing requirements",
      "temporal_scope": "Ongoing during employment relationship",
      "compliance_status": "unclear",
      "case_context": "Engineer B as PE and director must supervise unlicensed Engineer Intern A",
      "source_text": "Engineer Intern A is an unlicensed engineer in the DOT's bridge inspection program under the supervision of Engineer B",
      "is_existing_class": false,
      "confidence": 0.95
    },
    {
      "identifier": "EngineerInternA_CompleteReporting_DefectHistory",
      "obligation_class": "Complete Reporting Obligation",
      "obligated_party": "Engineer Intern A",
      "obligation_statement": "Report all material facts about the bridge defect including its five-year history",
      "derived_from": "Professional duty of complete disclosure",
      "enforcement_context": "Professional ethics and DOT policies",
      "temporal_scope": "At time of discovery and reporting",
      "compliance_status": "unmet",
      "case_context": "Failed to report that defect had been visible for five years when reporting to supervisor",
      "source_text": "reported the defect to Engineer B but did not report the fact that the defect had been visibly obvious for at least five years",
      "is_existing_class": false,
      "confidence": 0.9
    },
    {
      "identifier": "Inspector_Reporting_BridgeDefect",
      "obligation_class": "Reporting Obligation",
      "obligated_party": "Inspector under Engineer Intern A's supervision",
      "obligation_statement": "Report all visible defects in bridge inspections",
      "derived_from": "Bridge inspection protocols and safety requirements",
      "enforcement_context": "DOT inspection procedures and safety regulations",
      "temporal_scope": "During each inspection over five years",
      "compliance_status": "unmet",
      "case_context": "Failed to report visible concrete bridge member defect for at least five years",
      "source_text": "an inspector under the supervision of Engineer Intern A had failed to report a visibly obvious defect",
      "is_existing_class": true,
      "confidence": 0.95
    },
    {
      "identifier": "EngineerInternA_Supervision_Inspector",
      "obligation_class": "Supervision Obligation",
      "obligated_party": "Engineer Intern A",
      "obligation_statement": "Supervise and review work of inspector conducting bridge inspections",
      "derived_from": "DOT organizational structure and professional responsibility",
      "enforcement_context": "Employment responsibilities and professional standards",
      "temporal_scope": "Ongoing supervisory relationship",
      "compliance_status": "unmet",
      "case_context": "Failed to detect inspector's repeated omissions over five years",
      "source_text": "an inspector under the supervision of Engineer Intern A had failed to report a visibly obvious defect",
      "is_existing_class": false,
      "confidence": 0.85
    },
    {
      "identifier": "EngineerInternA_Safety_BridgeDefect",
      "obligation_class": "Safety Obligation",
      "obligated_party": "Engineer Intern A",
      "obligation_statement": "Ensure public safety by identifying and reporting bridge defects",
      "derived_from": "NSPE I.1 - Hold paramount public safety",
      "enforcement_context": "Professional engineering standards",
      "temporal_scope": "Upon discovery of defect",
      "compliance_status": "met",
      "case_context": "Reported the defect to supervisor upon discovery",
      "source_text": "Engineer Intern A reported the defect to Engineer B",
      "is_existing_class": true,
      "confidence": 0.9
    }
  ]
}
```
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 Intern A is an unlicensed engineer in the DOT’s bridge inspection program under the supervision of Engineer B, a PE and state DOT director. While reviewing the inspection report for a bridge, Engineer Intern A observed that an inspector under the supervision of Engineer Intern A had failed to report a visibly obvious defect in a concrete bridge member. Concerned, Engineer Intern A reviewed the inspector’s reports and photographs going back five years and discovered that the same inspector had failed to report the same defect for at least five years. Engineer Intern A reported the defect to Engineer B but did not report the fact that the defect had been visibly obvious for at least five years. 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 21:43
LLM Response
```json
{
  "new_constraint_classes": [
    {
      "label": "Supervisory Scope Constraint",
      "definition": "Limitations on the authority and oversight responsibilities of unlicensed or subordinate professionals over inspection personnel",
      "constraint_type": "procedural",
      "flexibility": "hard",
      "violation_impact": "Exceeding supervisory authority could result in invalid inspections or professional liability",
      "mitigation_possible": "Can be mitigated through proper licensing or delegation from licensed supervisor",
      "examples_from_case": ["Engineer Intern A supervising inspector despite being unlicensed", "Intern's limited authority to direct corrective action"],
      "source_text": "Engineer Intern A is an unlicensed engineer in the DOT's bridge inspection program under the supervision of Engineer B",
      "confidence": 0.85,
      "reasoning": "This constraint differs from Jurisdictional Constraint by specifically addressing supervisory limitations based on licensure status rather than geographical/organizational boundaries"
    },
    {
      "label": "Temporal Reporting Constraint",
      "definition": "Time-based limitations on when historical defects or patterns must be reported to maintain inspection integrity",
      "constraint_type": "temporal",
      "flexibility": "soft",
      "violation_impact": "Delayed reporting of historical patterns could compromise infrastructure safety and maintenance planning",
      "mitigation_possible": "Can be addressed through subsequent disclosure or amended reports",
      "examples_from_case": ["Five-year pattern of unreported defects", "Timing of when to report historical oversight failures"],
      "source_text": "discovered that the same inspector had failed to report the same defect for at least five years",
      "confidence": 0.75,
      "reasoning": "Unlike general Procedural Constraints, this specifically addresses temporal boundaries for reporting historical patterns of defects"
    }
  ],
  "constraint_individuals": [
    {
      "identifier": "Unlicensed_Engineer_Supervisory_Limitation",
      "constraint_class": "Supervisory Scope Constraint",
      "constrained_entity": "Engineer Intern A",
      "constraint_statement": "Cannot independently supervise inspectors without PE license",
      "source": "Professional engineering licensure requirements",
      "enforcement_mechanism": "DOT organizational hierarchy and PE supervision requirement",
      "temporal_scope": "During entire internship period",
      "severity": "major",
      "case_context": "Intern A supervises inspector but lacks authority to independently direct corrective actions",
      "source_text": "an inspector under the supervision of Engineer Intern A",
      "is_existing_class": false,
      "confidence": 0.85
    },
    {
      "identifier": "Inspection_Reporting_Competence_Boundary",
      "constraint_class": "Competence Constraint",
      "constrained_entity": "Inspector under Engineer Intern A",
      "constraint_statement": "Limited by technical competence to identify and report visible defects",
      "source": "Professional inspection standards and training",
      "enforcement_mechanism": "Supervisory review and quality control processes",
      "temporal_scope": "During all inspection activities",
      "severity": "critical",
      "case_context": "Inspector repeatedly failed to report visibly obvious defect over five years",
      "source_text": "inspector under the supervision of Engineer Intern A had failed to report a visibly obvious defect",
      "is_existing_class": true,
      "confidence": 0.90
    },
    {
      "identifier": "Historical_Pattern_Disclosure_Requirement",
      "constraint_class": "Temporal Reporting Constraint",
      "constrained_entity": "Engineer Intern A",
      "constraint_statement": "Must report patterns of defects discovered through historical review",
      "source": "Professional integrity and safety obligations",
      "enforcement_mechanism": "Professional ethics review and potential disciplinary action",
      "temporal_scope": "Upon discovery of historical pattern",
      "severity": "major",
      "case_context": "Intern A did not report that the defect had been obvious for five years",
      "source_text": "but did not report the fact that the defect had been visibly obvious for at least five years",
      "is_existing_class": false,
      "confidence": 0.80
    },
    {
      "identifier": "PE_Supervision_Requirement",
      "constraint_class": "Regulatory Constraint",
      "constrained_entity": "Engineer Intern A",
      "constraint_statement": "Must work under supervision of licensed PE (Engineer B)",
      "source": "State engineering licensure regulations",
      "enforcement_mechanism": "DOT policies and state engineering board",
      "temporal_scope": "Throughout unlicensed practice period",
      "severity": "critical",
      "case_context": "Intern A operates under Engineer B's PE supervision in bridge inspection program",
      "source_text": "under the supervision of Engineer B, a PE and state DOT director",
      "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 Intern A is an unlicensed engineer in the DOT’s bridge inspection program under the supervision of Engineer B, a PE and state DOT director. While reviewing the inspection report for a bridge, Engineer Intern A observed that an inspector under the supervision of Engineer Intern A had failed to report a visibly obvious defect in a concrete bridge member. Concerned, Engineer Intern A reviewed the inspector’s reports and photographs going back five years and discovered that the same inspector had failed to report the same defect for at least five years. Engineer Intern A reported the defect to Engineer B but did not report the fact that the defect had been visibly obvious for at least five years. 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 21:44
LLM Response
```json
{
  "new_capability_classes": [
    {
      "label": "Defect Recognition Capability",
      "definition": "The competency to identify, assess, and recognize structural defects or anomalies in infrastructure during inspection processes",
      "capability_type": "technical",
      "norm_competence_related": "Enables fulfillment of public safety obligations and accurate infrastructure assessment duties",
      "skill_level": "intermediate",
      "acquisition_method": "Technical training in structural engineering, inspection certification programs, field experience",
      "examples_from_case": ["Recognizing visibly obvious defects in concrete bridge members", "Identifying defects through visual inspection"],
      "source_text": "observed that an inspector under the supervision of Engineer Intern A had failed to report a visibly obvious defect in a concrete bridge member",
      "confidence": 0.9,
      "reasoning": "This represents a specific technical inspection competency not covered by existing Technical Capability class - focuses on defect identification skills"
    },
    {
      "label": "Historical Review Capability",
      "definition": "The competency to systematically review, analyze, and identify patterns in historical documentation and inspection records",
      "capability_type": "analytical",
      "norm_competence_related": "Enables identification of systemic issues and long-term safety concerns in professional practice",
      "skill_level": "advanced",
      "acquisition_method": "Experience in document analysis, training in quality assurance, investigative techniques",
      "examples_from_case": ["Reviewing inspector's reports going back five years", "Discovering patterns of unreported defects over time"],
      "source_text": "Engineer Intern A reviewed the inspector's reports and photographs going back five years and discovered",
      "confidence": 0.85,
      "reasoning": "Distinct from general analytical capabilities - specifically involves temporal pattern recognition in professional documentation"
    },
    {
      "label": "Supervisory Oversight Capability",
      "definition": "The competency to effectively monitor, review, and ensure quality of work performed by subordinates or team members under one's supervision",
      "capability_type": "ethical",
      "norm_competence_related": "Enables fulfillment of supervisory responsibilities and quality assurance obligations",
      "skill_level": "advanced",
      "acquisition_method": "Management training, supervisory experience, professional development courses",
      "examples_from_case": ["Engineer Intern A supervising an inspector", "Engineer B supervising Engineer Intern A"],
      "source_text": "an inspector under the supervision of Engineer Intern A had failed to report",
      "confidence": 0.8,
      "reasoning": "Different from Responsible Charge Capability - focuses on direct supervisory quality control rather than overall project responsibility"
    }
  ],
  "capability_individuals": [
    {
      "identifier": "EngineerInternA_DefectRecognition",
      "capability_class": "Defect Recognition Capability",
      "possessed_by": "Engineer Intern A",
      "capability_statement": "Ability to identify visibly obvious defects in concrete bridge members",
      "demonstrated_through": "Observation during report review",
      "proficiency_level": "intermediate",
      "enables_obligations": "Public safety protection through accurate infrastructure assessment",
      "temporal_aspect": "During inspection report review",
      "case_context": "Recognized defect that inspector failed to report",
      "source_text": "Engineer Intern A observed that an inspector under the supervision of Engineer Intern A had failed to report a visibly obvious defect",
      "is_existing_class": false,
      "confidence": 0.95
    },
    {
      "identifier": "EngineerInternA_HistoricalReview",
      "capability_class": "Historical Review Capability",
      "possessed_by": "Engineer Intern A",
      "capability_statement": "Ability to review and analyze five years of inspection reports and photographs",
      "demonstrated_through": "Systematic review of historical documentation",
      "proficiency_level": "advanced",
      "enables_obligations": "Due diligence in identifying systemic inspection failures",
      "temporal_aspect": "During investigation of defect reporting",
      "case_context": "Discovered pattern of unreported defects over five years",
      "source_text": "reviewed the inspector's reports and photographs going back five years and discovered",
      "is_existing_class": false,
      "confidence": 0.9
    },
    {
      "identifier": "EngineerB_ResponsibleCharge",
      "capability_class": "Responsible Charge Capability",
      "possessed_by": "Engineer B",
      "capability_statement": "Maintain supervisory control over bridge inspection program",
      "demonstrated_through": "PE license and DOT director position",
      "proficiency_level": "expert",
      "enables_obligations": "Overall program oversight and regulatory compliance",
      "temporal_aspect": "Ongoing throughout inspection program",
      "case_context": "Supervises Engineer Intern A and overall inspection program",
      "source_text": "Engineer B, a PE and state DOT director",
      "is_existing_class": true,
      "confidence": 0.95
    },
    {
      "identifier": "Inspector_DefectRecognition_Deficient",
      "capability_class": "Defect Recognition Capability",
      "possessed_by": "Inspector under Engineer Intern A",
      "capability_statement": "Failed capability to identify or report visible concrete defects",
      "demonstrated_through": "Pattern of non-reporting over five years",
      "proficiency_level": "basic",
      "enables_obligations": "Failed to enable public safety obligations",
      "temporal_aspect": "Over at least five year period",
      "case_context": "Systematic failure to report obvious defects",
      "source_text": "the same inspector had failed to report the same defect for at least five years",
      "is_existing_class": false,
      "confidence": 0.95
    }
  ]
}
```