Step 1: Contextual Framework Pass (Facts)
Extract roles, states, and resources from the facts section
Failure To Include Information In Engineering Report
Step 1 of 5
Facts Section
Section Content:
Facts: Engineer A was retained by a municipality to design a dock on a supporting foundation of 90 piles. Following construction, there was a contractor's extra claim and Engineer A and the municipality were both sued by the contractor. The claim was settled by mediation. Engineer A and the municipality shared the cost of the settlement with the contractor for $300,000. During the mediation, the municipality brought in expert witnesses to support their case. One expert testified that the pile driving records indicated that many of the piles did not, at the time of initial driving, meet driving resistance sufficient to satisfy the load carrying requirements of the design calculations. Engineer A testified that the geotechnical firm's report expected that the piles would gain sufficient additional strength within 30 days to meet driving resistance requirements. To test this, the municipality retained Engineer B to supervise the driving of several test piles to see whether the piles would gain sufficient strength to meet the design calculation requirements. An independent geotechnical consultant was retained by Engineer A to observe the test. The geotechnical consultant testified and showed that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test and that the test piles were not driven to the same depth of penetration that apparently was required for the plug to form in the original piles. Driving conditions were not duplicated in driving the test piles in that a vibratory hammer was used for the test piles and not used in the original driving. Also, after the 30 day set up, the driving hammer was dropped several times to start the hammer before the record of blow counts commenced. In the opinion of Engineer A's geotechnical consultant, this would have broken the pile bond and undervalued the skin friction value reported by Engineer B's tests. However, the test piles were driven and after a 30 day set, the increase in set up strength with time was confirmed. Engineer B's concluding report stated that approximately 19 of the 90 piles did not meet the safety factor required by the design calculations. This opinion was based upon the fact that the nineteen piles did not reach sufficient depth to develop the full strength when applying skin friction resistance value to the square footage of pile penetration. Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements. Additionally, Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed. At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records. No effort was made by Engineer B to inquire from contractors, workers, or others on the job to verify or refute his theories about why the 19 piles met driving refusal prior to predicted depth. When queried by Engineer A after the report was issued by Engineer B, Engineer B said: "We just did not believe the driving records and there was also the issue of whether the pile was vented to allow air to escape from below a closure plate that was included in the pile to separate the concrete fill in the pile from the clay. The driving records look suspicious." Previously, Engineer B had said, "We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work."
Roles Extraction
LLM Prompt
DUAL ROLE EXTRACTION - Professional Roles Analysis
EXISTING ROLE CLASSES IN ONTOLOGY:
- Test Professional Role: Test class for source reference
- Test Professional Role: Test class for source reference
- Test Professional Role: Test class for source reference
- Test Professional Role: Test class for source reference
- Test Professional Role: Test class for source reference
- Test Professional Role: Test class for source reference
=== TASK ===
From the following case text (facts section), extract information at TWO levels:
LEVEL 1 - NEW ROLE CLASSES: Identify professional roles that appear to be NEW types not covered by existing classes above. Look for:
- Specialized professional functions
- Emerging role types in engineering/technology
- Domain-specific professional positions
- Roles with unique qualifications or responsibilities
For each NEW role class, provide:
- label: Clear professional role name
- definition: Detailed description of role function and scope
- distinguishing_features: What makes this role unique/different
- professional_scope: Areas of responsibility and authority
- typical_qualifications: Required education, licensing, experience
- generated_obligations: What specific duties does this role create?
- associated_virtues: What virtues/qualities are expected (integrity, competence, etc.)?
- relationship_type: Provider-Client, Professional Peer, Employer, Public Responsibility
- domain_context: Engineering/Medical/Legal/etc.
- examples_from_case: How this role appears in the case text
- source_text: EXACT text snippet from the case where this role class is first identified or described (max 200 characters)
LEVEL 2 - ROLE INDIVIDUALS: Identify specific people mentioned who fulfill professional roles. For each person:
- name: EXACT name or identifier as it appears in the text (e.g., "Engineer A", "Client B", "Dr. Smith")
- role_classification: Which role class they fulfill (use existing classes when possible, or new class label if discovered)
- attributes: Specific qualifications, experience, titles, licenses mentioned in the text
- relationships: Employment, reporting, collaboration relationships explicitly stated
- Each relationship should specify: type (employs, reports_to, collaborates_with, serves_client, etc.) and target (person/org name)
- active_obligations: What specific duties is this person fulfilling in the case?
- ethical_tensions: Any conflicts between role obligations and personal/other obligations?
- case_involvement: How they participate in this case
- source_text: EXACT text snippet from the case where this individual is first mentioned or described (max 200 characters)
IMPORTANT: Use ONLY the actual names/identifiers found in the case text. DO NOT create realistic names or make up details not explicitly stated.
CASE TEXT:
Engineer A was retained by a municipality to design a dock on a supporting foundation of 90 piles. Following construction, there was a contractor's extra claim and Engineer A and the municipality were both sued by the contractor. The claim was settled by mediation. Engineer A and the municipality shared the cost of the settlement with the contractor for $300,000.
During the mediation, the municipality brought in expert witnesses to support their case. One expert testified that the pile driving records indicated that many of the piles did not, at the time of initial driving, meet driving resistance sufficient to satisfy the load carrying requirements of the design calculations. Engineer A testified that the geotechnical firm's report expected that the piles would gain sufficient additional strength within 30 days to meet driving resistance requirements.
To test this, the municipality retained Engineer B to supervise the driving of several test piles to see whether the piles would gain sufficient strength to meet the design calculation requirements. An independent geotechnical consultant was retained by Engineer A to observe the test. The geotechnical consultant testified and showed that dynamic test equipment had failed during the test and that the test piles were not driven to the same depth of penetration that apparently was required for the plug to form in the original piles. Driving conditions were not duplicated in driving the test piles in that a vibratory hammer was used for the test piles and not used in the original driving. Also, after the 30 day set up, the driving hammer was dropped several times to start the hammer before the record of blow counts commenced. In the opinion of Engineer A's geotechnical consultant, this would have broken the pile bond and undervalued the skin friction value reported by Engineer B's tests. However, the test piles were driven and after a 30 day set, the increase in set up strength with time was confirmed.
Engineer B's concluding report stated that approximately 19 of the 90 piles did not meet the safety factor required by the design calculations. This opinion was based upon the fact that the nineteen piles did not reach sufficient depth to develop the full strength when applying skin friction resistance value to the square footage of pile penetration. Engineer B did not state anywhere in the report that these 19 piles, according to the pile driving records, had been driven to essential refusal and that, applying accepted wave equation calculations, the piles would have indicated a strength several multiples over the calculated load requirements. Additionally, Engineer B did not report that the dynamic test equipment had failed.
At no time during the development of Engineer B's report did Engineer B talk to any representative of Engineer A, even though Engineer A's on-site representatives were available to testify as to the accuracy of the pile driving records. No effort was made by Engineer B to inquire from contractors, workers, or others on the job to verify or refute his theories about why the 19 piles met driving refusal prior to predicted depth. When queried by Engineer A after the report was issued by Engineer B, Engineer B said: "We just did not believe the driving records and there was also the issue of whether the pile was vented to allow air to escape from below a closure plate that was included in the pile to separate the concrete fill in the pile from the clay. The driving records look suspicious." Previously, Engineer B had said, "We didn't look at the pile driving records because it was not in our scope of work."
Respond with valid JSON in this format:
{
"new_role_classes": [
{
"label": "Environmental Compliance Specialist",
"definition": "Professional responsible for ensuring projects meet environmental regulations and standards",
"distinguishing_features": ["Environmental regulation expertise", "Compliance assessment capabilities", "EPA standards knowledge"],
"professional_scope": "Environmental impact assessment, regulatory compliance review, permit coordination",
"typical_qualifications": ["Environmental engineering degree", "Regulatory compliance experience", "Knowledge of EPA standards"],
"generated_obligations": ["Ensure regulatory compliance", "Report violations", "Maintain environmental standards"],
"associated_virtues": ["Environmental stewardship", "Regulatory integrity", "Technical competence"],
"relationship_type": "Provider-Client",
"domain_context": "Engineering",
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer A was retained to prepare environmental assessment", "specialist reviewed compliance requirements"],
"source_text": "Engineer A was retained to prepare environmental assessment"
}
],
"role_individuals": [
{
"name": "Engineer A",
"role_classification": "Environmental Compliance Specialist",
"attributes": {
"title": "Engineer",
"license": "professional engineering license",
"specialization": "environmental engineer",
"experience": "several years of experience"
},
"relationships": [
{"type": "retained_by", "target": "Client W"}
],
"case_involvement": "Retained to prepare comprehensive report addressing organic compound characteristics",
"source_text": "Engineer A, a professional engineer with several years of experience, was retained by Client W"
}
]
}
Saved: 2026-01-18 03:54
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_role_classes": [
{
"label": "Municipal Infrastructure Design Engineer",
"definition": "Professional engineer retained by governmental entities to design public infrastructure projects such as docks, bridges, and foundations, responsible for structural calculations and specifications",
"distinguishing_features": ["Government/municipal client relationship", "Public infrastructure focus", "Foundation and pile design expertise", "Accountability for design calculations"],
"professional_scope": "Design of municipal infrastructure, structural calculations, foundation specifications, coordination with geotechnical consultants",
"typical_qualifications": ["Professional engineering license", "Structural/civil engineering degree", "Experience in foundation design", "Knowledge of pile driving specifications"],
"generated_obligations": ["Provide accurate design calculations", "Ensure safety factors are met", "Coordinate with geotechnical experts", "Defend design decisions when challenged"],
"associated_virtues": ["Technical competence", "Public safety commitment", "Professional accountability", "Thoroughness"],
"relationship_type": "Provider-Client",
"domain_context": "Engineering",
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer A designed dock on 90 piles", "Engineer A testified about geotechnical expectations"],
"source_text": "Engineer A was retained by a municipality to design a dock on a supporting foundation of 90 piles."
},
{
"label": "Independent Testing Engineer",
"definition": "Professional engineer retained to conduct independent testing and evaluation of construction work, providing expert assessment of whether completed work meets design specifications",
"distinguishing_features": ["Independent evaluation role", "Testing supervision responsibility", "Expert witness potential", "Obligation to comprehensive investigation"],
"professional_scope": "Supervising field tests, evaluating test results, preparing technical reports, providing expert opinions on construction adequacy",
"typical_qualifications": ["Professional engineering license", "Testing and evaluation experience", "Knowledge of pile driving and foundation testing", "Expert witness qualifications"],
"generated_obligations": ["Conduct thorough and unbiased testing", "Consider all relevant evidence", "Report equipment failures", "Verify data accuracy before conclusions"],
"associated_virtues": ["Objectivity", "Thoroughness", "Intellectual honesty", "Professional integrity"],
"relationship_type": "Provider-Client",
"domain_context": "Engineering",
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer B supervised test pile driving", "Engineer B issued concluding report on pile adequacy"],
"source_text": "the municipality retained Engineer B to supervise the driving of several test piles to see whether the piles would gain sufficient strength"
},
{
"label": "Geotechnical Consultant",
"definition": "Specialized consultant providing expert analysis of soil conditions, pile behavior, and foundation performance, often retained to observe testing or provide expert testimony",
"distinguishing_features": ["Soil mechanics expertise", "Pile behavior analysis", "Independent observation role", "Expert testimony capability"],
"professional_scope": "Soil analysis, pile capacity assessment, observation of testing procedures, expert testimony on geotechnical matters",
"typical_qualifications": ["Geotechnical engineering specialization", "Professional engineering license", "Experience in pile foundation analysis", "Knowledge of dynamic testing equipment"],
"generated_obligations": ["Provide accurate soil assessments", "Observe and document testing procedures", "Report testing irregularities", "Offer objective expert opinions"],
"associated_virtues": ["Technical precision", "Observational diligence", "Scientific objectivity", "Professional honesty"],
"relationship_type": "Provider-Client",
"domain_context": "Engineering",
"examples_from_case": ["Geotechnical consultant observed test and testified about equipment failure", "Consultant noted testing conditions not duplicated"],
"source_text": "An independent geotechnical consultant was retained by Engineer A to observe the test."
}
],
"role_individuals": [
{
"name": "Engineer A",
"role_classification": "Municipal Infrastructure Design Engineer",
"attributes": {
"title": "Engineer",
"specialization": "dock and pile foundation design",
"project_role": "design engineer"
},
"relationships": [
{"type": "retained_by", "target": "municipality"},
{"type": "sued_by", "target": "contractor"},
{"type": "retained", "target": "independent geotechnical consultant"}
],
"active_obligations": ["Defend design calculations", "Provide testimony regarding design expectations", "Coordinate with geotechnical experts"],
"ethical_tensions": ["Defending own design work while being objective about potential deficiencies", "Financial interest in settlement outcome vs. technical accuracy"],
"case_involvement": "Designed the dock foundation, was sued along with municipality, testified about geotechnical expectations, retained independent consultant to observe testing",
"source_text": "Engineer A was retained by a municipality to design a dock on a supporting foundation of 90 piles."
},
{
"name": "Engineer B",
"role_classification": "Independent Testing Engineer",
"attributes": {
"title": "Engineer",
"project_role": "testing supervisor and report author"
},
"relationships": [
{"type": "retained_by", "target": "municipality"}
],
"active_obligations": ["Supervise test pile driving", "Prepare concluding report", "Evaluate pile adequacy"],
"ethical_tensions": ["Failed to report dynamic test equipment failure", "Did not consult with Engineer A's representatives", "Did not verify pile driving records", "Selective reporting of findings", "Contradictory statements about scope of work vs. belief in records"],
"case_involvement": "Retained to supervise test piles, issued report stating 19 piles did not meet safety factor, failed to report equipment failure, did not apply wave equation calculations, did not consult available witnesses",
"source_text": "the municipality retained Engineer B to supervise the driving of several test piles"
},
{
"name": "Engineer A's geotechnical consultant",
"role_classification": "Geotechnical Consultant",
"attributes": {
"title": "geotechnical consultant",
"designation": "independent"
},
"relationships": [
{"type": "retained_by", "target": "Engineer A"}
],
"active_obligations": ["Observe testing procedures", "Provide expert testimony", "Identify testing irregularities"],
"ethical_tensions": ["Retained by party with interest in outcome, yet expected to provide objective testimony"],
"case_involvement": "Observed test pile driving, testified about equipment failure, noted testing conditions differed from original construction, opined that hammer drops broke pile bond and undervalued results",
"source_text": "An independent geotechnical consultant was retained by Engineer A to observe the test."
},
{
"name": "municipality",
"role_classification": "Client/Project Owner",
"attributes": {
"type": "governmental entity",
"role": "project owner"
},
"relationships": [
{"type": "retained", "target": "Engineer A"},
{"type": "retained", "target": "Engineer B"},
{"type": "sued_by", "target": "contractor"},
{"type": "brought_in", "target": "expert witnesses"}
],
"active_obligations": ["Defend against contractor claims", "Investigate construction issues"],
"ethical_tensions": ["Interest in minimizing settlement costs vs. fair resolution"],
"case_involvement": "Retained Engineer A for design, was sued by contractor, retained Engineer B for testing, brought expert witnesses to mediation, shared settlement cost",
"source_text": "Engineer A was retained by a municipality to design a dock on a supporting foundation of 90 piles."
},
{
"name": "contractor",
"role_classification": "Construction Contractor",
"attributes": {
"role": "construction contractor"
},
"relationships": [
{"type": "sued", "target": "Engineer A"},
{"type": "sued", "target": "municipality"}
],
"active_obligations": ["Pursue extra claim for additional work/costs"],
"ethical_tensions": [],
"case_involvement": "Filed extra claim, sued Engineer A and municipality, settled through mediation for $300,000",
"source_text": "there was a contractor's extra claim and Engineer A and the municipality were both sued by the contractor."
}
]
}
```