Step 2: Normative Requirements Pass (Facts Section)
Extract principles, obligations, constraints, and capabilities from the facts section
Failure To Include Information In Engineering Report
Step 2 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."
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:
- Confidentiality:
- Confidentiality (Principle): Principle established by ethics code provisions
- Honesty:
- Honesty (Principle): Principle established by ethics code provisions
- Intellectual Honesty:
- Intellectual Honesty (Principle): Principle established by ethics code provisions
- Loyalty:
- Loyalty (Principle): Principle established by ethics code provisions
- Objectivity:
- Objectivity (Principle): Principle established by ethics code provisions
- Professional Accountability:
- Professional Accountability (Principle): Principle established by ethics code provisions
- Professional Competence:
- Professional Competence (Principle): Principle established by ethics code provisions
- Professional Dignity:
=== TASK ===
From the following case text (discussion 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:
A mix of legal or quasi-legal and engineering procedural philosophies are revealed in this case. Engineers must be exponents of all the available technical facts as the basis for problem solving. Facts are not adversarial, even if they may be conflicting. Adversarial interests, however, are polarizing to the effect that some facts may be preferred by one interest over the other.
In this case, an adversarial relationship is established between the municipality and Engineer A to resolve the sharing of a settlement cost between the two. To test the criteria and professional judgment upon which Engineer A's conclusion, and recommendations were based, the municipality arranged for a test pile driving program and retained Engineer B to supervise the program.
At the conclusion of the program Engineer B reports that 19 piles do not meet the required factor of safety for the reason that the piles were not driven to a sufficient depth that pile friction resistance would support the load. Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report. Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test, and that all 19 test piles reported as failing the test were driven to refusal.
Whatever rational Engineer B may employ to draw his conclusion, valid or not, the select language of the report precludes any interpretation that any or all 90 piles met the factor of safety requirement. The opportunity for expert engineering review and interpretation of the pile driving test was effectively denied by Engineer B's report.
It is not evident from the facts of the case that Engineer B's selective use of technical fact was inspired by the adversarial circumstance, nor does it matter. As evidence, the report appears to serve no purpose except to impugn Engineer A, or to support the original testimony of the municipality’s expert witness. As an engineering document the report is incomplete and does a disservice to Engineer B's client municipality by potentially misdirecting a conclusion. Neither interpretation is tolerated by the Code of Ethics which requires that engineers "shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such report, statements or testimony."
Further, by excluding the pile driving records, Engineer B has denied himself the opportunity to present a rational for discounting their value, and thereby to serve his client.
It is clear that Engineer B may be criticized for his failure to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative. We are inclined to the view that each was independently responsible for the assembly and interpretation of the facts of the pile driving. However, Engineer B’s failure to inquire from the contractor, workers or others on the job is a failure of fact gathering diligence.
Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data. This is an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, legal, quasi-legal or non-legal.
Note: Code III.1.f no longer exists.
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: 2026-01-18 04:01
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_principle_classes": [
{
"label": "Technical Completeness",
"definition": "Principle that engineering reports, statements, and testimony must include all relevant and pertinent technical information, not selectively presenting data to support predetermined conclusions",
"abstract_nature": "Epistemic integrity and comprehensive truth-telling in professional communications",
"extensional_examples": ["Including all test results in engineering reports", "Documenting equipment failures that affect data interpretation", "Presenting conflicting data alongside supporting data"],
"value_basis": "Truth and comprehensive disclosure as foundations of professional trust",
"application_context": ["Engineering reports", "Expert testimony", "Technical documentation", "Forensic engineering investigations"],
"operationalization": "Through requirements to document all material facts, disclose limitations, include contradictory evidence, and provide complete data sets",
"balancing_requirements": ["Client interests", "Confidentiality", "Relevance determinations"],
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer B excluded material facts about equipment failure and piles driven to refusal", "Report precluded interpretation that any piles met safety requirements"],
"source_text": "Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report. Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test, and that all 19 test piles reported as failing the test were driven to refusal."
},
{
"label": "Fact-Based Objectivity",
"definition": "Principle that engineering analysis must be grounded in technical facts rather than shaped by adversarial or partisan interests, maintaining independence from external pressures",
"abstract_nature": "Scientific objectivity and independence from non-technical influences on professional judgment",
"extensional_examples": ["Maintaining neutral analysis in litigation contexts", "Resisting client pressure to reach predetermined conclusions", "Separating technical findings from advocacy roles"],
"value_basis": "Integrity of engineering judgment and the primacy of technical truth over partisan interests",
"application_context": ["Expert witness testimony", "Dispute resolution", "Forensic investigations", "Adversarial legal proceedings"],
"operationalization": "Through separation of technical analysis from advocacy, disclosure of all relevant facts regardless of which party they favor, and resistance to selective data use",
"balancing_requirements": ["Client loyalty", "Confidentiality", "Advocacy within appropriate bounds"],
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data", "Facts are not adversarial, even if they may be conflicting"],
"source_text": "Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data. This is an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, legal, quasi-legal or non-legal."
},
{
"label": "Due Diligence in Fact-Gathering",
"definition": "Principle that engineers must exercise thoroughness and care in assembling all relevant facts before rendering professional opinions or conclusions",
"abstract_nature": "Epistemic responsibility and thoroughness as prerequisites to valid professional judgment",
"extensional_examples": ["Consulting with on-site personnel", "Reviewing all available records", "Inquiring from multiple sources before conclusions"],
"value_basis": "Responsibility to base professional opinions on adequate factual foundations",
"application_context": ["Site investigations", "Forensic engineering", "Design review", "Expert analysis"],
"operationalization": "Through systematic inquiry from all relevant sources, review of documentation, communication with involved parties",
"balancing_requirements": ["Time constraints", "Resource limitations", "Scope of engagement"],
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer B's failure to inquire from the contractor, workers or others on the job is a failure of fact gathering diligence", "failure to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative"],
"source_text": "Engineer B's failure to inquire from the contractor, workers or others on the job is a failure of fact gathering diligence."
}
],
"principle_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "Honesty_Case77_Discussion_Completeness",
"principle_class": "Honesty",
"concrete_expression": "engineers 'shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such report, statements or testimony.'",
"invoked_by": ["BER/Ethics Board"],
"applied_to": ["Engineer B's pile driving test report"],
"interpretation": "Honesty requires not merely avoiding false statements but affirmatively including all material information that could affect interpretation of findings",
"source_text": "Neither interpretation is tolerated by the Code of Ethics which requires that engineers 'shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such report, statements or testimony.'",
"balancing_with": ["Client Interests", "Loyalty"],
"tension_resolution": "The duty of complete disclosure overrides any perceived duty to support client's adversarial position",
"case_relevance": "Engineer B's report omitted material facts about equipment failure and refusal conditions, violating the completeness requirement"
},
{
"identifier": "Objectivity_Case77_Discussion_Adversarial",
"principle_class": "Objectivity",
"concrete_expression": "Facts are not adversarial, even if they may be conflicting.",
"invoked_by": ["BER/Ethics Board"],
"applied_to": ["Engineer B's approach to the pile testing program"],
"interpretation": "Objectivity requires treating technical facts as neutral evidence to be assembled and interpreted without regard to which party they favor in a dispute",
"source_text": "Engineers must be exponents of all the available technical facts as the basis for problem solving. Facts are not adversarial, even if they may be conflicting.",
"balancing_with": ["Loyalty to Client", "Advocacy Role"],
"tension_resolution": "Technical objectivity must be maintained even in adversarial legal or quasi-legal settings",
"case_relevance": "The adversarial relationship between municipality and Engineer A created pressure that may have influenced Engineer B's selective reporting"
},
{
"identifier": "Loyalty_Case77_Discussion_Misapplied",
"principle_class": "Loyalty",
"concrete_expression": "Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data.",
"invoked_by": ["BER/Ethics Board (critically)"],
"applied_to": ["Engineer B's relationship with municipality client"],
"interpretation": "Loyalty to client does not extend to selective use of data to support client's position; such misapplied loyalty actually disserves the client by misdirecting conclusions",
"source_text": "As an engineering document the report is incomplete and does a disservice to Engineer B's client municipality by potentially misdirecting a conclusion.",
"balancing_with": ["Honesty", "Objectivity", "Professional Accountability"],
"tension_resolution": "True service to client requires complete and objective analysis, not advocacy through selective data presentation",
"case_relevance": "Engineer B's attempt to defend municipality through selective data actually harmed the client by providing an incomplete and potentially misleading report"
},
{
"identifier": "ProfessionalAccountability_Case77_Discussion_Independent",
"principle_class": "Professional Accountability",
"concrete_expression": "each was independently responsible for the assembly and interpretation of the facts of the pile driving",
"invoked_by": ["BER/Ethics Board"],
"applied_to": ["Both Engineer A and Engineer B's roles in the pile testing"],
"interpretation": "Each engineer bears independent professional responsibility for their own fact-gathering and analysis, regardless of what other engineers may or may not have done",
"source_text": "We are inclined to the view that each was independently responsible for the assembly and interpretation of the facts of the pile driving.",
"balancing_with": ["Cooperation between professionals"],
"tension_resolution": "While cooperation is valued, it does not diminish individual accountability for thoroughness",
"case_relevance": "Engineer B cannot excuse incomplete fact-gathering by pointing to Engineer A's representative's actions or inactions"
},
{
"identifier": "IntellectualHonesty_Case77_Discussion_Rationale",
"principle_class": "Intellectual Honesty",
"concrete_expression": "by excluding the pile driving records, Engineer B has denied himself the opportunity to present a rational for discounting their value",
"invoked_by": ["BER/Ethics Board"],
"applied_to": ["Engineer B's analytical methodology"],
"interpretation": "Intellectual honesty requires engaging with contrary evidence and providing reasoned explanations for discounting it, rather than simply omitting it",
"source_text": "Further, by excluding the pile driving records, Engineer B has denied himself the opportunity to present a rational for discounting their value, and thereby to serve his client.",
"balancing_with": ["Efficiency in reporting"],
"tension_resolution": "The duty to engage intellectually with all relevant evidence takes precedence over streamlined reporting",
"case_relevance": "Engineer B's omission of pile driving records prevented any opportunity for reasoned professional debate about their significance"
}
]
}
```
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):
- Client Privacy: None
- Client Privacy (Obligation): Obligation established by ethics code provisions
- Duty of Care: None
- Duty of Care (Obligation): Obligation established by ethics code provisions
- Duty to Report: None
- Duty to Report (Obligation): Obligation established by ethics code provisions
- Error Acknowledgment: None
- Error Acknowledgment (Obligation): Obligation established by ethics code provisions
- Ethical Conduct: None
- Ethical Conduct (Obligation): Obligation established by ethics code provisions
- Fiduciary Duty: None
- Fiduciary Duty (Obligation): Obligation established by ethics code provisions
Analyze this discussion section:
A mix of legal or quasi-legal and engineering procedural philosophies are revealed in this case. Engineers must be exponents of all the available technical facts as the basis for problem solving. Facts are not adversarial, even if they may be conflicting. Adversarial interests, however, are polarizing to the effect that some facts may be preferred by one interest over the other.
In this case, an adversarial relationship is established between the municipality and Engineer A to resolve the sharing of a settlement cost between the two. To test the criteria and professional judgment upon which Engineer A's conclusion, and recommendations were based, the municipality arranged for a test pile driving program and retained Engineer B to supervise the program.
At the conclusion of the program Engineer B reports that 19 piles do not meet the required factor of safety for the reason that the piles were not driven to a sufficient depth that pile friction resistance would support the load. Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report. Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test, and that all 19 test piles reported as failing the test were driven to refusal.
Whatever rational Engineer B may employ to draw his conclusion, valid or not, the select language of the report precludes any interpretation that any or all 90 piles met the factor of safety requirement. The opportunity for expert engineering review and interpretation of the pile driving test was effectively denied by Engineer B's report.
It is not evident from the facts of the case that Engineer B's selective use of technical fact was inspired by the adversarial circumstance, nor does it matter. As evidence, the report appears to serve no purpose except to impugn Engineer A, or to support the original testimony of the municipality’s expert witness. As an engineering document the report is incomplete and does a disservice to Engineer B's client municipality by potentially misdirecting a conclusion. Neither interpretation is tolerated by the Code of Ethics which requires that engineers "shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such report, statements or testimony."
Further, by excluding the pile driving records, Engineer B has denied himself the opportunity to present a rational for discounting their value, and thereby to serve his client.
It is clear that Engineer B may be criticized for his failure to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative. We are inclined to the view that each was independently responsible for the assembly and interpretation of the facts of the pile driving. However, Engineer B’s failure to inquire from the contractor, workers or others on the job is a failure of fact gathering diligence.
Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data. This is an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, legal, quasi-legal or non-legal.
Note: Code III.1.f no longer exists.
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: 2026-01-18 04:01
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_obligation_classes": [
{
"label": "Complete Technical Reporting",
"definition": "Obligation requiring engineers to include all relevant and pertinent information in reports, statements, or testimony, without selective omission of material facts",
"derived_from_principle": "Honesty and Integrity",
"duty_type": "professional",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Code of Ethics enforcement through professional licensing boards and ethics committees",
"violation_consequences": "Professional discipline, damage to client interests, potential legal liability, impairment of engineering review process",
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer B failed to include that dynamic test equipment failed during the test", "Engineer B omitted that all 19 test piles were driven to refusal"],
"source_text": "Code of Ethics which requires that engineers 'shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such report, statements or testimony.'",
"confidence": 0.95,
"reasoning": "This is distinct from existing obligations as it specifically addresses the completeness of technical documentation and reporting, not general ethical conduct or error acknowledgment"
},
{
"label": "Fact-Gathering Diligence",
"definition": "Obligation requiring engineers to conduct thorough investigation and inquiry from all available sources when gathering technical facts for professional conclusions",
"derived_from_principle": "Professional Competence",
"duty_type": "professional",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Professional standards review, peer evaluation, ethics board oversight",
"violation_consequences": "Incomplete or flawed conclusions, professional criticism, potential malpractice claims",
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer B's failure to inquire from the contractor, workers or others on the job"],
"source_text": "Engineer B's failure to inquire from the contractor, workers or others on the job is a failure of fact gathering diligence.",
"confidence": 0.90,
"reasoning": "This represents a specific procedural duty distinct from general Duty of Care, focusing on the investigative process rather than outcomes"
},
{
"label": "Objective Technical Analysis",
"definition": "Obligation requiring engineers to base conclusions on complete technical facts without allowing adversarial interests to influence selective use of data",
"derived_from_principle": "Professional Objectivity",
"duty_type": "professional",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Ethics code enforcement, professional licensing oversight",
"violation_consequences": "Denial of professional duties, disservice to client, potential impugning of other professionals",
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer B assumed responsibility to defend client by selective use of data", "Report appears to serve no purpose except to impugn Engineer A"],
"source_text": "Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data.",
"confidence": 0.92,
"reasoning": "This is a distinct obligation addressing the prohibition against allowing adversarial contexts to compromise technical objectivity, not covered by existing classes"
},
{
"label": "Technical Fact Exposition",
"definition": "Obligation requiring engineers to be exponents of all available technical facts as the basis for problem solving, presenting facts without adversarial bias",
"derived_from_principle": "Public Interest and Professional Integrity",
"duty_type": "professional",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Professional ethics review, peer oversight",
"violation_consequences": "Polarization of facts, misdirection of conclusions, denial of expert review opportunity",
"examples_from_case": ["Engineers must be exponents of all the available technical facts as the basis for problem solving"],
"source_text": "Engineers must be exponents of all the available technical facts as the basis for problem solving. Facts are not adversarial, even if they may be conflicting.",
"confidence": 0.85,
"reasoning": "This establishes a foundational professional duty about the engineer's role in presenting technical facts, distinct from reporting obligations"
}
],
"obligation_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "EngineerB_CompleteReporting_PileTest",
"obligation_class": "Complete Technical Reporting",
"obligated_party": "Engineer B",
"obligation_statement": "Include all relevant and pertinent information in the pile driving test report, including equipment failures and pile refusal data",
"derived_from": "Code of Ethics (formerly Code III.1.f)",
"enforcement_context": "Ethics code violation subject to professional discipline",
"temporal_scope": "During preparation and submission of pile driving test report",
"compliance_status": "unmet",
"case_context": "Engineer B's report excluded material facts including dynamic test equipment failure and that all 19 piles were driven to refusal",
"source_text": "Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report. Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.95
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerB_FactGathering_Inquiry",
"obligation_class": "Fact-Gathering Diligence",
"obligated_party": "Engineer B",
"obligation_statement": "Inquire from contractor, workers, and others on the job site to gather complete technical facts",
"derived_from": "Professional Engineering Standards",
"enforcement_context": "Professional criticism and ethics review",
"temporal_scope": "During pile driving test program supervision",
"compliance_status": "unmet",
"case_context": "Engineer B failed to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative and failed to inquire from contractor and workers",
"source_text": "Engineer B's failure to inquire from the contractor, workers or others on the job is a failure of fact gathering diligence.",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.90
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerB_ObjectiveAnalysis_SelectiveData",
"obligation_class": "Objective Technical Analysis",
"obligated_party": "Engineer B",
"obligation_statement": "Must not selectively use data to defend client in adversarial proceedings",
"derived_from": "Code of Ethics",
"enforcement_context": "Ethics code enforcement - described as 'egregious denial of duties'",
"temporal_scope": "Throughout engagement in quasi-legal dispute resolution",
"compliance_status": "unmet",
"case_context": "Engineer B assumed responsibility to defend municipality by selective use of data in adversarial context",
"source_text": "This is an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, legal, quasi-legal or non-legal.",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.93
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerB_ClientService_RationalPresentation",
"obligation_class": "Fiduciary Duty",
"obligated_party": "Engineer B",
"obligation_statement": "Serve client by presenting complete information including rationale for discounting any data",
"derived_from": "Professional Fiduciary Obligations",
"enforcement_context": "Professional standards and client relationship duties",
"temporal_scope": "During report preparation for municipality client",
"compliance_status": "unmet",
"case_context": "By excluding pile driving records, Engineer B denied himself opportunity to present rationale and thereby serve his client properly",
"source_text": "by excluding the pile driving records, Engineer B has denied himself the opportunity to present a rational for discounting their value, and thereby to serve his client.",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.88
},
{
"identifier": "AllEngineers_TechnicalFactExposition",
"obligation_class": "Technical Fact Exposition",
"obligated_party": "All Licensed PEs",
"obligation_statement": "Be exponents of all available technical facts as basis for problem solving without adversarial bias",
"derived_from": "Engineering Professional Philosophy",
"enforcement_context": "Professional standards and ethics oversight",
"temporal_scope": "Ongoing professional duty",
"compliance_status": "unclear",
"case_context": "Case establishes that adversarial interests are polarizing and may cause preference of some facts over others",
"source_text": "Engineers must be exponents of all the available technical facts as the basis for problem solving.",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.85
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerB_Communication_OnsiteRepresentative",
"obligation_class": "Duty of Care",
"obligated_party": "Engineer B",
"obligation_statement": "Communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative during test program",
"derived_from": "Professional Standards of Care",
"enforcement_context": "Professional criticism and peer review",
"temporal_scope": "During pile driving test program",
"compliance_status": "unmet",
"case_context": "Engineer B failed to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative, though both were independently responsible for fact assembly",
"source_text": "It is clear that Engineer B may be criticized for his failure to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative.",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.85
}
]
}
```
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):
- Conflict of Interest Avoidance: None
- Conflict of Interest Avoidance (Constraint): Constraint established by ethics code provisions
- Non-Deception: None
- Non-Deception (Constraint): Constraint established by ethics code provisions
- Scope of Practice: None
- Scope of Practice (Constraint): Constraint established by ethics code provisions
Analyze this discussion section:
A mix of legal or quasi-legal and engineering procedural philosophies are revealed in this case. Engineers must be exponents of all the available technical facts as the basis for problem solving. Facts are not adversarial, even if they may be conflicting. Adversarial interests, however, are polarizing to the effect that some facts may be preferred by one interest over the other.
In this case, an adversarial relationship is established between the municipality and Engineer A to resolve the sharing of a settlement cost between the two. To test the criteria and professional judgment upon which Engineer A's conclusion, and recommendations were based, the municipality arranged for a test pile driving program and retained Engineer B to supervise the program.
At the conclusion of the program Engineer B reports that 19 piles do not meet the required factor of safety for the reason that the piles were not driven to a sufficient depth that pile friction resistance would support the load. Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report. Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test, and that all 19 test piles reported as failing the test were driven to refusal.
Whatever rational Engineer B may employ to draw his conclusion, valid or not, the select language of the report precludes any interpretation that any or all 90 piles met the factor of safety requirement. The opportunity for expert engineering review and interpretation of the pile driving test was effectively denied by Engineer B's report.
It is not evident from the facts of the case that Engineer B's selective use of technical fact was inspired by the adversarial circumstance, nor does it matter. As evidence, the report appears to serve no purpose except to impugn Engineer A, or to support the original testimony of the municipality’s expert witness. As an engineering document the report is incomplete and does a disservice to Engineer B's client municipality by potentially misdirecting a conclusion. Neither interpretation is tolerated by the Code of Ethics which requires that engineers "shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such report, statements or testimony."
Further, by excluding the pile driving records, Engineer B has denied himself the opportunity to present a rational for discounting their value, and thereby to serve his client.
It is clear that Engineer B may be criticized for his failure to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative. We are inclined to the view that each was independently responsible for the assembly and interpretation of the facts of the pile driving. However, Engineer B’s failure to inquire from the contractor, workers or others on the job is a failure of fact gathering diligence.
Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data. This is an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, legal, quasi-legal or non-legal.
Note: Code III.1.f no longer exists.
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: 2026-01-18 04:02
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_constraint_classes": [
{
"label": "Complete Technical Reporting",
"definition": "Constraint that limits engineers from selectively omitting relevant technical data, facts, or information from engineering reports and testimony",
"constraint_type": "procedural",
"flexibility": "hard",
"violation_impact": "Report becomes incomplete, potentially misdirects conclusions, denies opportunity for expert review, and violates Code of Ethics",
"mitigation_possible": "Cannot be mitigated - all relevant and pertinent information must be included",
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer B excluded pile driving records from report", "Failed to report that dynamic test equipment failed during test", "Did not report that all 19 test piles were driven to refusal"],
"source_text": "Code of Ethics which requires that engineers 'shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such report, statements or testimony.'",
"confidence": 0.95,
"reasoning": "This is distinct from Non-Deception as it specifically addresses completeness of technical documentation rather than active deception. It establishes a boundary on what can be excluded from reports."
},
{
"label": "Fact-Gathering Diligence",
"definition": "Constraint that limits engineers from drawing conclusions without conducting adequate investigation and inquiry from all available sources",
"constraint_type": "procedural",
"flexibility": "soft",
"violation_impact": "Failure to gather complete facts leads to incomplete analysis and potentially flawed conclusions",
"mitigation_possible": "Can be partially mitigated by documenting reasons for limited inquiry, but baseline diligence is required",
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer B failed to inquire from contractor, workers or others on the job", "Engineer B failed to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative"],
"source_text": "Engineer B's failure to inquire from the contractor, workers or others on the job is a failure of fact gathering diligence.",
"confidence": 0.85,
"reasoning": "This represents a procedural boundary on the minimum investigation required before forming engineering conclusions, distinct from existing constraint classes"
},
{
"label": "Adversarial Interest Neutrality",
"definition": "Constraint that prohibits engineers from allowing adversarial legal or quasi-legal circumstances to influence selective use of technical data",
"constraint_type": "procedural",
"flexibility": "hard",
"violation_impact": "Engineering judgment becomes compromised, facts become polarized, and professional duties are denied",
"mitigation_possible": "Cannot be mitigated - engineers must maintain objectivity regardless of adversarial context",
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer B appears to have assumed responsibility to defend client by selective use of data", "Report appears to serve no purpose except to impugn Engineer A or support municipality's expert witness"],
"source_text": "Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data. This is an egregious denial",
"confidence": 0.90,
"reasoning": "While related to Conflict of Interest, this specifically addresses the boundary against allowing adversarial legal contexts to influence technical objectivity"
}
],
"constraint_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "EngineerB-CompleteReporting-PileDrivingTest",
"constraint_class": "Complete Technical Reporting",
"constrained_entity": "Engineer B",
"constraint_statement": "Cannot exclude material facts including equipment failure and pile refusal data from test report",
"source": "Code of Ethics",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Professional ethics code enforcement and peer review",
"temporal_scope": "During preparation and submission of pile driving test report",
"severity": "critical",
"case_context": "Engineer B's report excluded that dynamic test equipment failed and that all 19 test piles were driven to refusal, violating the completeness requirement",
"source_text": "Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report. Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.95
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerB-FactGathering-SiteInquiry",
"constraint_class": "Fact-Gathering Diligence",
"constrained_entity": "Engineer B",
"constraint_statement": "Cannot form conclusions without inquiring from available sources including contractor and on-site workers",
"source": "Professional engineering standards",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Professional peer criticism and ethics review",
"temporal_scope": "During pile driving test supervision and report preparation",
"severity": "major",
"case_context": "Engineer B failed to inquire from contractor, workers, or Engineer A's on-site representative before drawing conclusions",
"source_text": "Engineer B's failure to inquire from the contractor, workers or others on the job is a failure of fact gathering diligence.",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.85
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerB-AdversarialNeutrality-MunicipalityCase",
"constraint_class": "Adversarial Interest Neutrality",
"constrained_entity": "Engineer B",
"constraint_statement": "Cannot selectively use technical data to serve adversarial interests of client municipality against Engineer A",
"source": "Code of Ethics and professional engineering standards",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Ethics board review and professional sanctions",
"temporal_scope": "Throughout engagement in adversarial settlement dispute",
"severity": "critical",
"case_context": "Engineer B's selective reporting appeared designed to impugn Engineer A or support municipality's position in settlement dispute",
"source_text": "Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data.",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.90
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerB-NonDeception-ReportLanguage",
"constraint_class": "Non-Deception (Constraint)",
"constrained_entity": "Engineer B",
"constraint_statement": "Cannot use selective language that precludes interpretation that piles may have met safety requirements",
"source": "Code of Ethics",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Professional ethics enforcement",
"temporal_scope": "During report preparation and submission",
"severity": "critical",
"case_context": "The select language of Engineer B's report precludes any interpretation that any or all 90 piles met the factor of safety requirement",
"source_text": "the select language of the report precludes any interpretation that any or all 90 piles met the factor of safety requirement",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.88
},
{
"identifier": "Engineers-FactBasedProblemSolving",
"constraint_class": "Complete Technical Reporting",
"constrained_entity": "All Engineers",
"constraint_statement": "Must base problem solving on all available technical facts, not selectively chosen facts",
"source": "Engineering professional philosophy",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Professional standards and peer review",
"temporal_scope": "Throughout all engineering problem-solving activities",
"severity": "major",
"case_context": "Engineers must be exponents of all available technical facts; facts are not adversarial even if conflicting",
"source_text": "Engineers must be exponents of all the available technical facts as the basis for problem solving. Facts are not adversarial",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.85
}
]
}
```
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
Analyze this discussion section:
A mix of legal or quasi-legal and engineering procedural philosophies are revealed in this case. Engineers must be exponents of all the available technical facts as the basis for problem solving. Facts are not adversarial, even if they may be conflicting. Adversarial interests, however, are polarizing to the effect that some facts may be preferred by one interest over the other.
In this case, an adversarial relationship is established between the municipality and Engineer A to resolve the sharing of a settlement cost between the two. To test the criteria and professional judgment upon which Engineer A's conclusion, and recommendations were based, the municipality arranged for a test pile driving program and retained Engineer B to supervise the program.
At the conclusion of the program Engineer B reports that 19 piles do not meet the required factor of safety for the reason that the piles were not driven to a sufficient depth that pile friction resistance would support the load. Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report. Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test, and that all 19 test piles reported as failing the test were driven to refusal.
Whatever rational Engineer B may employ to draw his conclusion, valid or not, the select language of the report precludes any interpretation that any or all 90 piles met the factor of safety requirement. The opportunity for expert engineering review and interpretation of the pile driving test was effectively denied by Engineer B's report.
It is not evident from the facts of the case that Engineer B's selective use of technical fact was inspired by the adversarial circumstance, nor does it matter. As evidence, the report appears to serve no purpose except to impugn Engineer A, or to support the original testimony of the municipality’s expert witness. As an engineering document the report is incomplete and does a disservice to Engineer B's client municipality by potentially misdirecting a conclusion. Neither interpretation is tolerated by the Code of Ethics which requires that engineers "shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such report, statements or testimony."
Further, by excluding the pile driving records, Engineer B has denied himself the opportunity to present a rational for discounting their value, and thereby to serve his client.
It is clear that Engineer B may be criticized for his failure to communicate with Engineer A's on-site representative. We are inclined to the view that each was independently responsible for the assembly and interpretation of the facts of the pile driving. However, Engineer B’s failure to inquire from the contractor, workers or others on the job is a failure of fact gathering diligence.
Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data. This is an egregious denial of the duties and responsibilities of a professional engineer in any setting, legal, quasi-legal or non-legal.
Note: Code III.1.f no longer exists.
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: 2026-01-18 04:03
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_capability_classes": [
{
"label": "Comprehensive Technical Fact Assembly",
"definition": "The competency to systematically gather, compile, and present all available technical facts relevant to an engineering problem, regardless of whether they support a particular position or interest",
"capability_type": "technical",
"norm_competence_related": "Obligation to include all relevant and pertinent information in reports, statements, or testimony",
"skill_level": "advanced",
"acquisition_method": "Professional experience in technical investigations, training in forensic engineering methods, and education in research methodology",
"examples_from_case": ["Gathering pile driving records", "Documenting equipment failures during testing", "Recording that piles were driven to refusal"],
"source_text": "Engineers must be exponents of all the available technical facts as the basis for problem solving.",
"confidence": 0.9,
"reasoning": "This capability specifically addresses the systematic assembly of ALL technical facts in adversarial contexts, distinct from general data collection skills"
},
{
"label": "Non-Adversarial Fact Presentation",
"definition": "The competency to present technical findings objectively without allowing adversarial interests to influence the selection or emphasis of facts",
"capability_type": "ethical",
"norm_competence_related": "Obligation to maintain objectivity and avoid selective use of data that serves partisan interests",
"skill_level": "expert",
"acquisition_method": "Ethics training, experience in litigation support, mentorship in professional integrity",
"examples_from_case": ["Presenting both favorable and unfavorable test results", "Avoiding selective language that precludes alternative interpretations"],
"source_text": "Facts are not adversarial, even if they may be conflicting. Adversarial interests, however, are polarizing to the effect that some facts may be preferred",
"confidence": 0.85,
"reasoning": "This represents a specific ethical competency for maintaining objectivity in adversarial professional contexts, beyond general honesty requirements"
},
{
"label": "Complete Engineering Documentation",
"definition": "The competency to produce engineering reports that include all material facts, test results, equipment issues, and contextual information necessary for independent expert review",
"capability_type": "analytical",
"norm_competence_related": "Code requirement to include all relevant and pertinent information in reports",
"skill_level": "advanced",
"acquisition_method": "Technical writing training, professional practice standards education, peer review experience",
"examples_from_case": ["Including dynamic test equipment failure information", "Documenting pile driving to refusal conditions"],
"source_text": "Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report. Among them, that dynamic test equipment failed during the test",
"confidence": 0.9,
"reasoning": "Specific competency for comprehensive documentation that enables third-party review, distinct from basic report writing"
},
{
"label": "Fact-Gathering Diligence",
"definition": "The competency to proactively seek information from all available sources including contractors, workers, on-site representatives, and other stakeholders during engineering investigations",
"capability_type": "communicative",
"norm_competence_related": "Professional duty to conduct thorough investigations before reaching conclusions",
"skill_level": "intermediate",
"acquisition_method": "Field experience, investigative training, professional mentorship",
"examples_from_case": ["Inquiring from contractors about pile driving conditions", "Communicating with on-site representatives"],
"source_text": "Engineer B's failure to inquire from the contractor, workers or others on the job is a failure of fact gathering diligence.",
"confidence": 0.9,
"reasoning": "Specific investigative competency involving stakeholder engagement, distinct from general communication skills"
},
{
"label": "Interpretive Transparency",
"definition": "The competency to present engineering conclusions in language that permits alternative interpretations and expert review, rather than using selective language that forecloses other valid conclusions",
"capability_type": "communicative",
"norm_competence_related": "Obligation to enable peer review and not mislead through selective presentation",
"skill_level": "advanced",
"acquisition_method": "Technical communication training, peer review participation, ethics education",
"examples_from_case": ["Using language that allows for interpretation that piles may have met safety requirements"],
"source_text": "the select language of the report precludes any interpretation that any or all 90 piles met the factor of safety requirement",
"confidence": 0.85,
"reasoning": "Novel competency addressing how language choices in reports can enable or prevent legitimate alternative interpretations"
},
{
"label": "Adversarial Context Professional Independence",
"definition": "The competency to maintain professional objectivity and fulfill engineering duties without assuming an advocacy role for the retaining client in legal or quasi-legal proceedings",
"capability_type": "ethical",
"norm_competence_related": "Duty to serve as objective technical expert rather than advocate in adversarial proceedings",
"skill_level": "expert",
"acquisition_method": "Expert witness training, ethics education, experience in litigation support",
"examples_from_case": ["Not selectively using data to defend client position", "Maintaining engineering objectivity despite being retained by one party"],
"source_text": "Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data.",
"confidence": 0.9,
"reasoning": "Specific competency for maintaining professional role boundaries in adversarial legal contexts"
}
],
"capability_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "EngineerA_TechnicalFactPresentation",
"capability_class": "Comprehensive Technical Fact Assembly",
"possessed_by": "Engineer A",
"capability_statement": "Ability to develop conclusions and recommendations based on technical criteria and professional judgment",
"demonstrated_through": "Original engineering conclusions that were subject to testing verification",
"proficiency_level": "advanced",
"enables_obligations": "Providing sound engineering recommendations to clients",
"temporal_aspect": "During initial engineering assessment",
"case_context": "Engineer A's original conclusions and recommendations formed the basis for the dispute and subsequent pile testing program",
"source_text": "To test the criteria and professional judgment upon which Engineer A's conclusion, and recommendations were based",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.8
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerB_PileTestSupervision",
"capability_class": "Technical Testing Supervision",
"possessed_by": "Engineer B",
"capability_statement": "Ability to supervise pile driving test programs",
"demonstrated_through": "Retention by municipality to supervise test pile driving program",
"proficiency_level": "advanced",
"enables_obligations": "Conducting technical verification testing",
"temporal_aspect": "During pile driving test program",
"case_context": "Engineer B was retained specifically to supervise the test pile driving program to verify Engineer A's conclusions",
"source_text": "the municipality arranged for a test pile driving program and retained Engineer B to supervise the program",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.85
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerB_FailedFactAssembly",
"capability_class": "Comprehensive Technical Fact Assembly",
"possessed_by": "Engineer B",
"capability_statement": "Deficient capability in assembling all material technical facts for engineering reports",
"demonstrated_through": "Omission of equipment failure and pile refusal data from report",
"proficiency_level": "basic",
"enables_obligations": "Failed to enable obligation to include all relevant information",
"temporal_aspect": "During report preparation",
"case_context": "Engineer B failed to include material facts about equipment failure and piles driven to refusal",
"source_text": "Material facts, however, were not addressed in Engineer B's report",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.9
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerB_FailedFactGatheringDiligence",
"capability_class": "Fact-Gathering Diligence",
"possessed_by": "Engineer B",
"capability_statement": "Deficient capability in gathering facts from available on-site sources",
"demonstrated_through": "Failure to communicate with Engineer A's representative, contractors, and workers",
"proficiency_level": "basic",
"enables_obligations": "Failed to enable thorough investigation obligations",
"temporal_aspect": "During pile testing investigation",
"case_context": "Engineer B did not inquire from available sources who could have provided relevant information",
"source_text": "Engineer B's failure to inquire from the contractor, workers or others on the job is a failure of fact gathering diligence",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.9
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerB_FailedInterpretiveTransparency",
"capability_class": "Interpretive Transparency",
"possessed_by": "Engineer B",
"capability_statement": "Deficient capability in presenting findings with language permitting alternative interpretations",
"demonstrated_through": "Report language that precluded any interpretation of pile compliance",
"proficiency_level": "basic",
"enables_obligations": "Failed to enable peer review and objective assessment",
"temporal_aspect": "During report writing",
"case_context": "Engineer B's selective language effectively denied opportunity for expert engineering review",
"source_text": "The opportunity for expert engineering review and interpretation of the pile driving test was effectively denied by Engineer B's report",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.85
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerB_FailedAdversarialIndependence",
"capability_class": "Adversarial Context Professional Independence",
"possessed_by": "Engineer B",
"capability_statement": "Deficient capability in maintaining professional objectivity in adversarial context",
"demonstrated_through": "Assuming advocacy role for client through selective data use",
"proficiency_level": "basic",
"enables_obligations": "Failed to maintain objectivity required by Code of Ethics",
"temporal_aspect": "Throughout engagement",
"case_context": "Engineer B assumed responsibility to defend client rather than provide objective engineering assessment",
"source_text": "Engineer B appears to have assumed a responsibility to defend the client municipality by the selective use of data",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.9
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerB_FactInterpretationResponsibility",
"capability_class": "Technical Data Interpretation",
"possessed_by": "Engineer B",
"capability_statement": "Independent responsibility for assembly and interpretation of pile driving facts",
"demonstrated_through": "Assignment as supervising engineer for test program",
"proficiency_level": "advanced",
"enables_obligations": "Duty to independently assess and interpret technical data",
"temporal_aspect": "During test program supervision",
"case_context": "Engineer B held independent responsibility for fact assembly and interpretation",
"source_text": "each was independently responsible for the assembly and interpretation of the facts of the pile driving",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.85
},
{
"identifier": "EngineerB_FailedRationalePresentation",
"capability_class": "Technical Justification",
"possessed_by": "Engineer B",
"capability_statement": "Deficient capability in presenting rationale for discounting contrary evidence",
"demonstrated_through": "Failure to explain why pile driving records were excluded",
"proficiency_level": "basic",
"enables_obligations": "Failed to serve client through complete analysis",
"temporal_aspect": "During report preparation",
"case_context": "By excluding records, Engineer B denied himself opportunity to present rationale for discounting their value",
"source_text": "by excluding the pile driving records, Engineer B has denied himself the opportunity to present a rational for discounting their value",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.8
}
]
}
```