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) has addressed question surrounding an engineer’s duty to report risk to the public health, safety, and welfare on several occasions. For example, in BER Case 76-4 , Engineer was hired to confirm discharge’s effect on water quality will not be below standards. After analysis but before preparing a written report, Engineer verbally advises client that the discharge will reduce water quality below the standards and that remediation will be expensive. Client instructs Engineers not to file a written report, pays Engineer, and terminates the contract. Engineer learns that Client appeared at a public hearing with data showing compliance. Although this case is 45 years old and the specific words of the Code have changed in the interim, the concepts are unchanged. Public health, safety, and welfare are the paramount concern of every engineer and pre-empt any obligation to clients. There is a clear risk to public health, safety, and welfare with a consequent clear duty to report. In BER Case 90-5 , Engineer was retained as an expert by Attorney for the landlord-defendant in a lawsuit involving non-structural functionality issues. Engineer discovered serious structural defects which Engineer believes constitute an immediate threat to the safety of the tenants. Engineer immediately informed Attorney. Attorney instructs Engineer to keep the information confidential since it is part of the lawsuit (which it is not – the tenants included no safety-related complaints). The BER found that Engineer’s obligation to protect the public health, safety, and welfare pre-empted Engineer’s duty of confidentiality to Attorney and Attorney’s client. Consequently, Engineer had an obligation to notify the tenants and the appropriate public authorities of the danger. [The BER did not discuss any consequences of the Attorney’s deceptive practices.] There is a clear risk to public health, safety, and welfare with a consequent clear duty to report. In BER Case 17-3 , Forensic Engineer was retained to conduct a post-arson evaluation of a beam for possible re-use. Forensic Engineer determined that the beam had suffered little enough damage that it could be re-used. However, Forensic Engineer was concerned that the beam appeared to be too light for the loads it carried, ran the appropriate structural calculations, and determined that the beam was seriously undersized. Forensic Engineer includes the information in the written report, expressing the concern that the deficient design had been repeated in other tract homes in the development of the same design. The BER held that Forensic Engineer had an obligation to notify individual homeowners, the local homeowners or community civic association, and local building officials of the findings. Again, there is a clear risk to public health, safety, and welfare with a consequent clear duty to report. In the present case, there is no duty of confidentiality to the builder that would place any obligations of Engineer A in tension. That means that the inquiry is solely focused on whether Engineer A has a duty to intervene by notifying the homeowner.Were the circumstances only slightly different and Engineer A observed clearly hazardous conditions such as frayed, sparking wires or a displaced collar on a water heater that is almost certain to be releasing carbon monoxide, then public health, safety, and welfare would clearly be at risk. However, in the present case, the direct risks are the inoperability of the sprinkler system and property damage from flooding resulting from frozen pipes. If Engineer A has a duty to intervene, it would arise either because of an imminent risk to public health, safety, and welfare or from duties associated with Sections I.4 (faithful agent) and III.1.b (project won’t be successful). Frozen pipes could cause the sprinkler system to become inoperable, posing a potential risk to the public’s health, safety, and welfare, triggering a duty to report the issue to the Owner/Client in writing. The BER holds that Engineer A’s duties under Sections 1.4 (faithful agent) and III.1.b (project won’t be successful) require that Engineer A advise the Owner in writing of the risks associated with frozen pipes. Engineer A does not, however, have a duty to investigate or to recommend mitigation alternatives. 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)