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: This case focuses on the engineer's ethical obligation to comply with local and state procurement laws, including state registration board rules of professional conduct, that require consultant selection through a competitive QBS process. This case also discusses how engineers must conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, and fairly so as to maintain the public’s trust in professional procurement matters. The Board of Ethical Review (BER) Case 08-8 provides helpful precedent. This case discussed actions by the US Justice Department, in 1977, that required NSPE and other engineering and professional organizations to remove NSPE Code of Ethics (Code) provisions related to professional selection, compensation, restrictions on competitive bidding, free engineering, supplanting, advertising, and other practices, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in National Soc'y of Prof. Engineers v. United States, 435 U.S. 679 (1978). BER Case 08-8 concluded that one of the most fundamental outcomes of these antitrust actions and rules was the basic principle that federal, state, and local laws governing procedures to procure engineering services are not affected and remain in full force and effect. Earlier BER opinions confirm that engineers may, and sometimes must, challenge procurement practices that could compromise the public interest. For example, BER Case 80-1 examined a state agency’s selection method that mixed qualifications screening with a post-scoping meeting price proposal. Firms B and C publicly protested the award to Firm A because they believed a low-cost bid ($70,000-$80,000 less than Firm B and C) was unsafe and could lead to an inadequate design. The BER held that lodging such a protest was not an unfair competitive act under the Code. BER Case 80-1 includes an “Additional Views” section that provides that while those authors agree with the BER conclusions, “we feel that Firms B and C are walking a very thin line of ethical practices when they make a public statement” regarding Firm A’s fees and likelihood of project success. Recent BER cases demonstrate that an engineer’s careful compliance with licensure law is expected. For example, BER Case 22-1 introduced Engineer A, a consulting engineer, who presented signed and sealed design contract documents to the State Agency manager, “Transportation Engineer” B, who personally reviewed those documents for final approval, made comments, and directed changes – all of which under the laws of the state constituted the practice of engineering. Engineer A learned that “Transportation Engineer” B was neither a licensed engineer nor even a degreed engineer. Engineer A in BER Case 22-1 was concerned that the State Agency had given staff in management positions the title of “Engineer” when they were not qualified to review and approve consulting engineers’ design documents. In BER Case 22-1 , the BER found it was unlawful and therefore not ethical for “Transportation Engineer” B to engage in the practice of engineering without having fulfilled the requirements for licensure: adequate education, rigorous examination, and substantial experience. Moreover, because “Transportation Engineer” B was practicing engineering (as defined by the state in question), Engineer A had an obligation to report “Transportation Engineer” B for unlicensed practice. BER Case 23-3 discussed Engineer D, a licensed professional engineer, who worked as the City Engineer in a mid-sized municipality that had been experiencing rapid population and infrastructure growth. Engineer D had been one of the City's main points of contact for AE firms and contractors in the area, both with respect to contract negotiation and award (consultant and construction) and senior-level review of major project issues that arose from time to time. Engineer D announced plans to step down as the City Engineer and indicated that they accepted a position at an unnamed engineering firm in the City. Of significance was that the City did not include “revolving door” provisions in employment contracts for its senior-level employees. Shortly after Engineer D's announcement, Firm AE&R announced Engineer D as a newly hired associate. AE&R completed many projects for the City during Engineer D's tenure as City Engineer, and the firm planned to continue submitting proposals and performing consulting work for the City. In their analysis of BER Case 23-3 , the BER acknowledged: Some might assert that because Engineer A's employment contract with the City did not include a revolving door prohibition, nothing more needs to be said. But the BER does not hold this perspective. BER Case 58-1 speaks of the ‘purity of the enterprise, of avoiding ‘dishonor to the profession, and how engineers must consider not only the letter but the spirit of the ethics code. Consistent with Fundamental Canon 1.6, such values form the context of an engineer’s professional relationships and apply in this case. A third example is BER Case 21-9 , where Engineer A was a licensed professional engineer in three states (C, D, and E) and was a Board Certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering. Attorney X contacted Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M. Engineer A agreed to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony. The licensing statute in State M specified that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M. Engineer A signed the report as “Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,” and made no reference whatsoever to licensure status. There the BER concluded that if Engineer A qualified as an expert without relying on engineering qualifications, Engineer A’s self-presentation as a consultant-expert without identifying status as a licensed professional engineer was not unethical. However, when Engineer A claimed status as a Board Certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering, Engineer A’s self-presentation became unethical. The point is, per Code section III.8.a, engineers are ethically obligated to “conform with state registration laws in the practice of engineering” and they must do so in an honorable, responsible, and ethical manner. Turning to the first question for consideration, the facts establish that whereas City D’s hiring of Firm X complied with procurement law, City D’s two recent contract awards to Firm Z appear to have violated the procurement law. For this reason, the City D Engineer and those engineers employed by Firm Z are in violation of the procurement law, and also Code section III.8.a. Accordingly, Engineer B has an obligation, per Code section II.1.f, to report “any alleged violation of this Code,” and B has done so. Engineer B’s actions are consistent with the BER’s analysis of past cases. It is reasonable to question whether Engineer A is “the proper authority” – e.g., is there another more appropriate group or individual B should have contacted? Resolving issues at the lowest possible level is often an effective way to solve problems. In this case, Engineer A was able to establish there were no issues with Firm X or with three of the five contracts Firm Z had with the City. Engineer A can in good faith report to Engineer B that there are no issues with Firm X and can also point out other avenues for Engineer B to raise concerns, for example, the state licensing agency or the City Attorney. The second question asks about Engineer A’s investigation. Engineer A was made aware of potential unlawful practices, so A has an obligation to not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering. Engineer A also has an obligation to the City to act as a faithful agent or trustee. Reviewing contracting procedures and notifying relevant parties about potential violations of established procedures is consistent with these Code of Ethics requirements. The third question asks what steps must Engineer A take given the City D Engineer’s refusal to address the contract arrangement with Firm Z. The BER holds that per Code sections II.1.e, II.1.f, and III.8.a, appropriate action must be taken. Such action should proceed advisedly, carefully, and sensitively, with a view to complying with the law and Code sections I.4, I.6, III.6, III.7, while simultaneously promoting the interests of all stakeholders to the extent possible. Ideally, Engineer A should proceed within the City’s approved channels of communication. Engineer D’s authority should be respected, and all facts must be carefully checked and verified. It may be prudent to solicit input from other stakeholders such as the City Manager, the City Attorney, and other engineers who are knowledgeable of the situation. It is in City D’s interest – legally, ethically, and politically – to procure its consultant services in accordance with the laws of the state where its engineers are licensed. Within this context, Engineer A will hopefully be able to influence responsible parties to follow a legal, ethical, and mutually acceptable solution. Engineer A, Engineer B, and City D’s Engineer must also consider any obligations they may have to report to the state licensure board. 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)