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: Engineer Intern D’s adherence to DOT policy (avoiding the old water main) is in accord with the Canon 3 requirements of objectivity and truthfulness. Engineer W’s willingness to overlook DOT policy is inconsistent with Canon 4, the engineer’s obligation to act as faithful agent or trustee of one’s employer and with Canon 5, to avoid deception, which, of course, challenges Canon 6, protecting the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession. Of course, situations like this have happened before. In BER Case 98-5 , Engineer Charlie served as director of a building department in a major city where, as a result of a series of budget cutbacks and more rigid code enforcement requirements, he became concerned that his staff would be unable to perform adequate and timely building inspections. Engineer Charlie met with the chairman of the local city council to discuss his concerns. The chairman indicated that he would be willing to issue an order to permit the hiring of additional code officials for the building department. However, the chairman sought Engineer Charlie’s concurrence on a city ordinance that would permit certain specified buildings under construction to be “grandfathered” under the older existing enforcement requirements and not the newer, more rigid requirements now in effect. Engineer Charlie agreed. The Board acknowledged that Engineer Charlie might interpret the situation as one involving “trade-offs” in which one must weigh one “public good” (a better building inspection process) against a competing or concurrent ”public good” (a consistent code enforcement process). In such a situation, the engineer could arguably rationalize a decision to compromise, something frequently done in the political arena. However, the Board rejected the logic of compromise for Case 98-5 , concluding that Engineer Charlie had a responsibility to make it plain and clear to the chairman that “righting a wrong with another wrong,” increases risk of grave damage to the public health and safety. As regards the present case, clearly the situation with the State DOT and Shadyvale is a political one, but the ethical value directly at risk is not the public safety, health and welfare, but rather, the truth. The Board consistently upholds objectivity and truthfulness as a core ethical value of the engineering profession. BER Case 05-5 relates how Engineer Adam, while acting as the chief negotiator in the sale of a small engineering subsidiary to Engineer Baker, wanted to move the negotiations forward to finalize the deal, but Engineer Baker was stalling. Engineer Mary had expressed some initial interest in buying the subsidiary, but after further consideration, Engineer Mary decided she was definitely not interested in purchasing the subsidiary. In an effort to move the negotiations off “dead center,” and referring to Engineer Mary’s earlier interest, Engineer Adam told Engineer Baker, “Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary, so you had better move quickly if you are interested.” In deciding that Engineer Adam’s negotiation approach merited the Board’s rebuke, the Board found Engineer Adam’s words “artfully misleading” or, in the words of prior BER Case 86-6 , “intentionally designed to mislead… by obscuring the truth.” Had Engineer Adam disclosed the full circumstances relating to his conversation with Engineer Mary, the Board’s conclusion for Engineer Adam would have been different. “This Board strongly believes that honesty and truthfulness are hallmark qualities of a practicing engineer.” Whereas Case 05-5 identifies Engineer Adam seeking his own interests, for this present case, it is appropriate to ask, “Whose interests is the engineer (Engineer W) serving? Is it the interests of the travelling public? Or is it the residents of Shadyvale interest in their water system? Or perhaps it is the engineer’s own interests? In the present case, clearly Engineer W is a DOT engineer and does not have a contractual relationship with Shadyvale. However, Engineer W’s direction to Engineer Intern D has placed the interests of Shadyvale above the interests of the DOT in violation of the clear policy of the DOT. If Engineer Intern D decides to cooperate with Engineer W, it is likely that no one else would ever know that $700,000 of DOT money had been diverted for the benefit of Shadyvale. All four of Canons 3, 4, 5, and 6 have been attacked. The facts of the present case do not indicate Engineer W will personally profit by helping the residents of Shadyvale upgrade their water main. If anything, the facts imply both practical awareness of project efficiencies and a strongly altruistic motivation to do all the good he can do. However, benevolent motives do not make unethical conduct ethical. In the present case, the Board is not concerned about Engineer W’s competence, his intention, or his motivation; these appear meritorious and praiseworthy. While Engineer W’s direct solution in Shadyvale may well be efficient and optimal, helping the residents of Shadyvale cannot be accomplished at the expense of the truth. The matter is particularly poignant when it is realized how formational the lesson will be to Engineer Intern D, a young engineer about to begin a professional career. Is secretly diverting $700,000 of state DOT funds to benefit an impoverished village the best version of how projects are done? No. Were Engineer W willing to try an open and transparent way, an ethical way, to help the residents of Shadyvale, this Board would offer our support, not our censure. Better approaches are available. For example, Engineer W could request a joint meeting to discuss the situation. Or Engineer W could run this up the chain of command with the State DOT. Perhaps Shadyvale could be allowed to benefit from construction activities the DOT was already undertaking. Perhaps that efficiency would sufficiently decrease the scope of Shadyvale’s work to make it affordable. Perhaps the DOT could assist Shadyvale with grant applications so that Shadyvale would be prepared to take advantage of the on-going DOT work. However, secretly diverting $700,000 of state DOT funds is not an ethical solution. 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)