Step 2: Normative Requirements Pass (Facts Section)
Extract principles, obligations, constraints, and capabilities from the facts section
Misrepresentation of Qualifications
Step 2 of 5
Facts Section
Section Content:
Facts: Engineer A is a licensed Professional Engineer in three states (C, D, and E) and is a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering. Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M. Engineer A agrees to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony. The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M. Engineer A signs the report as “Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,” making no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
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 A is a licensed Professional Engineer in three states (C, D, and E) and is a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering. Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M. Engineer A agrees to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony. The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M. Engineer A signs the report as “Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,” making no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
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 22:32
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_principle_classes": [
{
"label": "Jurisdictional Compliance",
"definition": "Principle that professional practice must respect and adhere to the legal and regulatory requirements of the jurisdiction where services are provided",
"abstract_nature": "Respect for legal authority and regulatory frameworks",
"extensional_examples": ["Cross-border practice", "Multi-state licensing", "International consulting", "Expert testimony in different jurisdictions"],
"value_basis": "Rule of law and regulatory legitimacy",
"application_context": ["Interstate engineering practice", "Expert witness services", "Cross-jurisdictional consulting"],
"operationalization": "Through obtaining proper licenses, understanding local regulations, complying with jurisdictional requirements",
"balancing_requirements": ["Professional expertise", "Client needs", "Market opportunities", "Professional reputation"],
"examples_from_case": ["State M requires licensing for expert testimony", "Engineer A practices across multiple states"],
"source_text": "The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M"
},
{
"label": "Truthful Representation",
"definition": "Principle requiring accurate and complete disclosure of professional qualifications, credentials, and status when offering professional services",
"abstract_nature": "Honesty and transparency in professional self-representation",
"extensional_examples": ["Credential disclosure", "Licensing status declaration", "Qualification statements", "Professional titles usage"],
"value_basis": "Truth and authenticity in professional identity",
"application_context": ["Expert witness services", "Professional consulting", "Cross-jurisdictional practice", "Client engagement"],
"operationalization": "Through complete disclosure of credentials, accurate use of titles, transparent communication about qualifications",
"balancing_requirements": ["Professional reputation", "Market competitiveness", "Client expectations", "Legal requirements"],
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer A signs as 'Consultant A' without licensure reference", "Makes no reference to licensure status"],
"source_text": "Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status"
}
],
"principle_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "JurisdictionalCompliance_StateM_Requirement",
"principle_class": "Jurisdictional Compliance",
"concrete_expression": "The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M",
"invoked_by": ["State M licensing statute"],
"applied_to": ["Engineer A's expert testimony services"],
"interpretation": "Legal requirement for licensure applies to all engineers providing expert testimony regardless of their expertise or credentials in other jurisdictions",
"source_text": "The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M",
"balancing_with": ["Professional Expertise", "Client Needs"],
"tension_resolution": "Not explicitly resolved in the facts presented",
"case_relevance": "Central to determining whether Engineer A's conduct violates professional standards"
},
{
"identifier": "TruthfulRepresentation_EngineerA_Signature",
"principle_class": "Truthful Representation",
"concrete_expression": "Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status",
"invoked_by": ["Engineer A through signature choice"],
"applied_to": ["Expert report signature and credential representation"],
"interpretation": "Engineer A represents credentials selectively, emphasizing board certification while omitting licensure status relevant to jurisdiction",
"source_text": "Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status",
"balancing_with": ["Jurisdictional Compliance", "Professional Competence"],
"tension_resolution": "Engineer A appears to prioritize expertise representation over jurisdictional disclosure",
"case_relevance": "Raises questions about transparency and compliance with both legal and ethical obligations"
},
{
"identifier": "Competence_EngineerA_Qualifications",
"principle_class": "Competence Principle",
"concrete_expression": "Engineer A is a licensed Professional Engineer in three states (C, D, and E) and is a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering",
"invoked_by": ["Case facts establishing credentials"],
"applied_to": ["Engineer A's qualification to provide expert testimony"],
"interpretation": "Engineer A has substantial professional competence through multiple state licenses and board certification",
"source_text": "Engineer A is a licensed Professional Engineer in three states (C, D, and E) and is a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering",
"balancing_with": ["Jurisdictional Compliance"],
"tension_resolution": "Competence alone may not satisfy jurisdictional requirements",
"case_relevance": "Establishes Engineer A's professional expertise while highlighting the tension with State M licensing requirements"
}
]
}
```
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 A is a licensed Professional Engineer in three states (C, D, and E) and is a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering. Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M. Engineer A agrees to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony. The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M. Engineer A signs the report as “Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,” making no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
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 22:33
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_obligation_classes": [
{
"label": "Jurisdictional Licensing Obligation",
"definition": "Requirement to obtain proper licensure in the specific jurisdiction where professional services are being provided, particularly for legal proceedings",
"derived_from_principle": "Legal Compliance and Professional Integrity",
"duty_type": "legal",
"enforcement_mechanism": "State licensing boards, court sanctions, professional discipline",
"violation_consequences": "Legal penalties, exclusion of testimony, professional sanctions, loss of credibility",
"examples_from_case": ["Must be licensed in State M to provide expert testimony in State M court"],
"source_text": "The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M",
"confidence": 0.95,
"reasoning": "This represents a specific legal duty to obtain jurisdiction-specific licensure for testimony, distinct from general competence or legal obligations"
},
{
"label": "Credential Representation Obligation",
"definition": "Duty to accurately and completely represent one's professional credentials, licenses, and qualifications in all professional communications",
"derived_from_principle": "Honesty and Transparency",
"duty_type": "professional",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Professional boards, licensing authorities, legal sanctions for misrepresentation",
"violation_consequences": "Professional censure, legal liability for misrepresentation, loss of professional standing",
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer A signs only as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate' without disclosing licensure status"],
"source_text": "Engineer A signs the report as \"Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,\" making no reference whatsoever to licensure status",
"confidence": 0.9,
"reasoning": "Goes beyond disclosure obligation to specifically address how credentials must be represented in professional documents"
}
],
"obligation_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "EngineerA_StateMlicensing_Obligation",
"obligation_class": "Jurisdictional Licensing Obligation",
"obligated_party": "Engineer A",
"obligation_statement": "Must be licensed in State M before providing expert testimony in State M court",
"derived_from": "State M licensing statute",
"enforcement_context": "State M court system and licensing board",
"temporal_scope": "Before and during provision of expert testimony",
"compliance_status": "unmet",
"case_context": "Engineer A agreed to provide expert testimony in State M without being licensed there",
"source_text": "The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.95
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerA_CredentialRepresentation_Obligation",
"obligation_class": "Credential Representation Obligation",
"obligated_party": "Engineer A",
"obligation_statement": "Must accurately represent licensure status when signing professional reports",
"derived_from": "Professional ethics and honesty principles",
"enforcement_context": "Professional boards and legal proceedings",
"temporal_scope": "When signing expert reports",
"compliance_status": "unmet",
"case_context": "Engineer A omitted licensure status and only listed board certification",
"source_text": "Engineer A signs the report as \"Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,\" making no reference whatsoever to licensure status",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.9
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerA_Disclosure_LicensureStatus",
"obligation_class": "Disclosure Obligation",
"obligated_party": "Engineer A",
"obligation_statement": "Must disclose lack of State M licensure to Attorney X and the court",
"derived_from": "NSPE Code II.3.a - duty to disclose limitations",
"enforcement_context": "Professional ethics enforcement and court rules",
"temporal_scope": "Before agreeing to provide testimony",
"compliance_status": "unmet",
"case_context": "Engineer A did not disclose to Attorney X that he lacks State M licensure",
"source_text": "Engineer A agrees to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.85
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerA_Competence_JurisdictionalLimitation",
"obligation_class": "Competence Obligation",
"obligated_party": "Engineer A",
"obligation_statement": "Must only provide services where legally qualified to practice",
"derived_from": "NSPE Code II.2 - competence requirement",
"enforcement_context": "State licensing boards and professional standards",
"temporal_scope": "Throughout engagement",
"compliance_status": "unmet",
"case_context": "Engineer A lacks legal qualification to provide engineering testimony in State M",
"source_text": "Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.8
}
]
}
```
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 A is a licensed Professional Engineer in three states (C, D, and E) and is a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering. Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M. Engineer A agrees to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony. The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M. Engineer A signs the report as “Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,” making no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
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 22:33
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_constraint_classes": [
{
"label": "Professional Title Constraint",
"definition": "Limitations on how professionals may represent their qualifications, titles, and credentials in professional communications and documents",
"constraint_type": "legal",
"flexibility": "hard",
"violation_impact": "Misrepresentation charges, legal sanctions, professional discipline",
"mitigation_possible": "Can be mitigated by accurate and complete disclosure of actual credentials",
"examples_from_case": ["How Engineer A signs reports", "Representation as 'Consultant A' vs 'Engineer A'"],
"source_text": "Engineer A signs the report as \"Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,\" making no reference whatsoever to licensure status",
"confidence": 0.85,
"reasoning": "This constraint type addresses boundaries on professional self-representation not covered by existing Attribution, Legal, or Regulatory constraints"
},
{
"label": "Cross-Jurisdictional Practice Constraint",
"definition": "Boundaries on professional practice when operating outside one's licensed jurisdiction, including testimony and consulting services",
"constraint_type": "legal",
"flexibility": "hard",
"violation_impact": "Unauthorized practice violations, testimony exclusion, legal penalties",
"mitigation_possible": "Can be addressed through reciprocity agreements, temporary permits, or obtaining additional licenses",
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer A licensed in states C, D, E but testifying in State M"],
"source_text": "The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M",
"confidence": 0.9,
"reasoning": "While Jurisdictional Constraint exists, this specifically addresses cross-border practice limitations not fully captured by existing classes"
}
],
"constraint_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "State_M_Engineering_Testimony_License_Requirement",
"constraint_class": "Legal Constraint",
"constrained_entity": "Any engineer providing expert testimony in State M",
"constraint_statement": "Must be licensed in State M to provide engineering expert testimony in State M courts",
"source": "State M licensing statute",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Court exclusion of testimony, legal sanctions",
"temporal_scope": "When providing expert testimony in State M courts",
"severity": "critical",
"case_context": "Engineer A lacks State M license but agrees to provide expert testimony there",
"source_text": "The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.95
},
{
"identifier": "Engineer_A_State_M_License_Absence",
"constraint_class": "Competence Constraint",
"constrained_entity": "Engineer A",
"constraint_statement": "Cannot legally provide engineering expert testimony in State M due to lack of State M license",
"source": "Absence of State M professional engineering license",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Legal prohibition, potential testimony exclusion",
"temporal_scope": "Current and ongoing until State M license obtained",
"severity": "critical",
"case_context": "Engineer A is not licensed in State M where testimony is requested",
"source_text": "Engineer A is a licensed Professional Engineer in three states (C, D, and E)",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.9
},
{
"identifier": "Engineer_A_Title_Representation_Limitation",
"constraint_class": "Professional Title Constraint",
"constrained_entity": "Engineer A",
"constraint_statement": "Must not misrepresent professional status when signing reports in jurisdictions where not licensed as engineer",
"source": "Professional ethics and State M regulations",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Professional discipline, legal action for misrepresentation",
"temporal_scope": "When preparing and signing reports for State M proceedings",
"severity": "major",
"case_context": "Engineer A signs as 'Consultant A' avoiding engineer title but may still violate testimony requirements",
"source_text": "Engineer A signs the report as \"Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,\"",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.85
},
{
"identifier": "Non_Engineering_Expert_Service_Boundary",
"constraint_class": "Cross-Jurisdictional Practice Constraint",
"constrained_entity": "Engineer A",
"constraint_statement": "Cannot provide engineering expert services in State M without State M license, even if labeled as 'non-engineering'",
"source": "State M licensing requirements and professional practice boundaries",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Legal enforcement, testimony exclusion",
"temporal_scope": "During engagement with Attorney X for State M case",
"severity": "critical",
"case_context": "Attorney X seeks 'non-engineering expert' but Engineer A's expertise is inherently engineering-based",
"source_text": "Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.8
}
]
}
```
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 A is a licensed Professional Engineer in three states (C, D, and E) and is a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering. Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M. Engineer A agrees to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony. The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M. Engineer A signs the report as “Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,” making no reference whatsoever to licensure status.
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 22:34
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_capability_classes": [
{
"label": "Jurisdictional Awareness Capability",
"definition": "The competency to understand and navigate licensing requirements across different jurisdictions and states",
"capability_type": "analytical",
"norm_competence_related": "Enables compliance with state-specific licensing laws and regulations for professional practice",
"skill_level": "advanced",
"acquisition_method": "Experience practicing in multiple jurisdictions, legal education, professional development courses",
"examples_from_case": ["Understanding State M licensing requirements", "Knowing limitations of multi-state licensure"],
"source_text": "The licensing statute in State M specifies that any engineer providing expert testimony in a State M court must be licensed in State M",
"confidence": 0.9,
"reasoning": "This capability is distinct from general Regulatory Compliance as it specifically addresses cross-jurisdictional practice awareness"
},
{
"label": "Expert Witness Capability",
"definition": "The competency to provide professional expert testimony and opinions in legal proceedings",
"capability_type": "communicative",
"norm_competence_related": "Enables proper representation of professional expertise in legal contexts while maintaining ethical standards",
"skill_level": "expert",
"acquisition_method": "Specialized training, courtroom experience, forensic certification programs",
"examples_from_case": ["Providing expert testimony", "Preparing expert opinions for court"],
"source_text": "Attorney X contacts Engineer A, seeking the services of a non-engineering expert to provide testimony in State M",
"confidence": 0.85,
"reasoning": "Expert witness work requires unique competencies beyond general technical or communicative capabilities"
},
{
"label": "Professional Credential Representation Capability",
"definition": "The competency to accurately and ethically represent one's professional qualifications and credentials",
"capability_type": "ethical",
"norm_competence_related": "Enables truthful representation of professional status and avoiding misrepresentation",
"skill_level": "intermediate",
"acquisition_method": "Ethics training, professional conduct education, understanding of title laws",
"examples_from_case": ["Signing reports with appropriate credentials", "Disclosing licensure status"],
"source_text": "Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering,' making no reference whatsoever to licensure status",
"confidence": 0.95,
"reasoning": "This is distinct from general ethical capabilities as it specifically addresses credential representation"
}
],
"capability_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "EngineerA_MultiStateLicensure",
"capability_class": "Jurisdictional Awareness Capability",
"possessed_by": "Engineer A",
"capability_statement": "Licensed to practice engineering in three states (C, D, and E)",
"demonstrated_through": "Professional licenses in multiple states",
"proficiency_level": "advanced",
"enables_obligations": "Legal practice of engineering in States C, D, and E",
"temporal_aspect": "Current and ongoing",
"case_context": "Has multi-state licensure but not in State M where testimony is needed",
"source_text": "Engineer A is a licensed Professional Engineer in three states (C, D, and E)",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.95
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerA_ForensicExpertise",
"capability_class": "Expert Witness Capability",
"possessed_by": "Engineer A",
"capability_statement": "Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering with ability to provide expert testimony",
"demonstrated_through": "Board certification and professional credentials",
"proficiency_level": "expert",
"enables_obligations": "Providing expert forensic engineering opinions and testimony",
"temporal_aspect": "Current certification",
"case_context": "Qualified to provide forensic engineering expertise but constrained by licensing requirements",
"source_text": "Engineer A is a licensed Professional Engineer in three states (C, D, and E) and is a Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.9
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerA_CredentialRepresentation",
"capability_class": "Professional Credential Representation Capability",
"possessed_by": "Engineer A",
"capability_statement": "Ability to represent professional credentials in reports and testimony",
"demonstrated_through": "Signing reports with selected credentials",
"proficiency_level": "intermediate",
"enables_obligations": "Accurate representation of professional qualifications",
"temporal_aspect": "When signing reports and providing testimony",
"case_context": "Chose to sign as 'Consultant' with board certification but omitted licensure status",
"source_text": "Engineer A signs the report as 'Consultant A, Board-certified Diplomate in Forensic Engineering'",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.85
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerA_CaseEvaluation",
"capability_class": "Technical Capability",
"possessed_by": "Engineer A",
"capability_statement": "Evaluate engineering cases and prepare expert opinions",
"demonstrated_through": "Agreement to evaluate case and prepare opinion",
"proficiency_level": "expert",
"enables_obligations": "Providing technical analysis for legal proceedings",
"temporal_aspect": "During case evaluation and opinion preparation",
"case_context": "Agreed to evaluate the case despite licensing limitations in State M",
"source_text": "Engineer A agrees to evaluate the case, prepare an expert opinion, and provide testimony",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.9
}
]
}
```