Step 2: Normative Requirements Pass (Facts Section)
Extract principles, obligations, constraints, and capabilities from the facts section
Public Welfare - Knowledge of Information Damaging to Client's Interest
Step 2 of 5
Facts Section
Section Content:
Facts: The XYZ Corporation has been advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it has 60 days to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing wastes into a receiving body of water. XYZ is also advised of the minimum standard that must be met. In an effort to convince the authority that the receiving body of water after receiving the manufacturing wastes will still meet established environmental standards, the corporation employs Engineer Doe to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report. After completion of his studies but before completion of any written report, Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards. He further concludes that corrective action will be very costly. Doe verbally advises the XYZ Corporation of his findings. Subsequently, the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation. Thereafter, Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards.
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 (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:
The XYZ Corporation has been advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it has 60 days to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing wastes into a receiving body of water. XYZ is also advised of the minimum standard that must be met.
In an effort to convince the authority that the receiving body of water after receiving the manufacturing wastes will still meet established environmental standards, the corporation employs Engineer Doe to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report.
After completion of his studies but before completion of any written report, Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards. He further concludes that corrective action will be very costly. Doe verbally advises the XYZ Corporation of his findings. Subsequently, the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation.
Thereafter, Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards.
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: 2026-01-17 09:19
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_principle_classes": [
{
"label": "Environmental Protection",
"definition": "Principle that engineers have an ethical duty to protect the natural environment and prevent harm to ecological systems, even when this conflicts with client interests or contractual relationships",
"abstract_nature": "Environmental stewardship and ecological justice - the moral responsibility to preserve natural systems and prevent environmental degradation",
"extensional_examples": ["Preventing water pollution from industrial discharge", "Protecting air quality from emissions", "Preserving ecosystems from development impacts", "Ensuring proper waste disposal"],
"value_basis": "Recognition that the natural environment has intrinsic value and that its protection serves both present and future generations",
"application_context": ["Environmental engineering", "Industrial consulting", "Waste management", "Water resources engineering", "Manufacturing processes"],
"operationalization": "Through environmental impact assessments, adherence to environmental standards, disclosure of environmental risks, refusal to participate in environmental harm",
"balancing_requirements": ["Client confidentiality", "Contractual obligations", "Economic considerations", "Professional loyalty"],
"examples_from_case": ["Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards", "the corporation employs Engineer Doe to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report"],
"source_text": "Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards"
},
{
"label": "Public Disclosure",
"definition": "Principle that engineers have an ethical duty to ensure that accurate technical information reaches appropriate authorities and the public, particularly when public welfare or environmental protection is at stake",
"abstract_nature": "Transparency and democratic accountability - the moral imperative to ensure that decisions affecting the public are made with access to truthful technical information",
"extensional_examples": ["Reporting safety hazards to authorities", "Providing accurate testimony at public hearings", "Correcting misleading technical claims", "Whistleblowing on environmental violations"],
"value_basis": "Democratic governance requires accurate information; concealment of technical facts that affect public welfare undermines legitimate decision-making",
"application_context": ["Regulatory proceedings", "Public hearings", "Environmental permitting", "Safety certifications", "Government contracting"],
"operationalization": "Through formal reports to authorities, testimony at hearings, professional communications to regulatory bodies, public statements when necessary",
"balancing_requirements": ["Client confidentiality", "Contractual obligations", "Professional loyalty", "Personal economic interests"],
"examples_from_case": ["the authority has called a public hearing", "the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards"],
"source_text": "Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards"
}
],
"principle_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "Honesty_XYZCase_CorporateMisrepresentation",
"principle_class": "Honesty",
"concrete_expression": "the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards",
"invoked_by": ["XYZ Corporation"],
"applied_to": ["public hearing on discharge permit"],
"interpretation": "The corporation presents data claiming compliance while having terminated an engineer whose findings contradicted this position, raising questions about the honesty of the presentation",
"source_text": "the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards",
"balancing_with": ["Corporate self-interest", "Economic considerations"],
"tension_resolution": "The case presents this as an unresolved tension - the corporation's presentation may violate honesty principles",
"case_relevance": "Central ethical issue - whether the corporation is being honest with the regulatory authority given Doe's contrary findings"
},
{
"identifier": "Confidentiality_XYZCase_ClientTermination",
"principle_class": "Confidentiality",
"concrete_expression": "instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation",
"invoked_by": ["XYZ Corporation"],
"applied_to": ["Engineer Doe's findings about water quality"],
"interpretation": "The corporation attempts to use confidentiality and contractual control to suppress unfavorable technical findings",
"source_text": "the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation",
"balancing_with": ["Environmental Protection", "Public Disclosure", "Honesty"],
"tension_resolution": "Unresolved in facts - presents the core dilemma of whether confidentiality obligations limit Doe's ability to disclose",
"case_relevance": "Creates the ethical dilemma - Doe has knowledge that contradicts the corporation's public position but may be bound by confidentiality"
},
{
"identifier": "Objectivity_XYZCase_TechnicalFindings",
"principle_class": "Objectivity",
"concrete_expression": "Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards",
"invoked_by": ["Engineer Doe"],
"applied_to": ["assessment of manufacturing waste discharge impact"],
"interpretation": "Doe maintains objective technical judgment despite it being unfavorable to the client who employed him",
"source_text": "After completion of his studies but before completion of any written report, Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards",
"balancing_with": ["Loyalty to client", "Contractual obligations"],
"tension_resolution": "Doe maintains objectivity by reporting findings verbally despite their unfavorable nature",
"case_relevance": "Demonstrates professional objectivity - Doe did not alter findings to please client"
},
{
"identifier": "Loyalty_XYZCase_ClientRelationship",
"principle_class": "Loyalty",
"concrete_expression": "the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed",
"invoked_by": ["XYZ Corporation"],
"applied_to": ["consulting relationship with Engineer Doe"],
"interpretation": "The corporation expects loyalty in the form of silence about unfavorable findings, terminating the relationship when findings are adverse",
"source_text": "Subsequently, the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation",
"balancing_with": ["Environmental Protection", "Public Disclosure", "Professional Accountability"],
"tension_resolution": "Unresolved - the case asks whether loyalty to former client limits Doe's disclosure obligations",
"case_relevance": "Raises question of whether professional loyalty extends to concealing findings harmful to public welfare"
},
{
"identifier": "ProfessionalAccountability_XYZCase_PublicHearing",
"principle_class": "Professional Accountability",
"concrete_expression": "Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing",
"invoked_by": ["State Pollution Control Authority"],
"applied_to": ["permit application process for discharge"],
"interpretation": "The public hearing mechanism creates a forum where professional accountability to the public may override private contractual relationships",
"source_text": "Thereafter, Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards",
"balancing_with": ["Confidentiality", "Loyalty"],
"tension_resolution": "Unresolved - presents the question of whether Doe has accountability to participate in or inform the public hearing",
"case_relevance": "The public hearing creates a moment where Doe's professional accountability to public welfare may require action"
}
]
}
```
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 facts section:
The XYZ Corporation has been advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it has 60 days to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing wastes into a receiving body of water. XYZ is also advised of the minimum standard that must be met.
In an effort to convince the authority that the receiving body of water after receiving the manufacturing wastes will still meet established environmental standards, the corporation employs Engineer Doe to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report.
After completion of his studies but before completion of any written report, Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards. He further concludes that corrective action will be very costly. Doe verbally advises the XYZ Corporation of his findings. Subsequently, the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation.
Thereafter, Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards.
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: 2026-01-17 09:20
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_obligation_classes": [
{
"label": "Duty to Disclose Environmental Harm",
"definition": "Obligation requiring professionals to report findings that indicate potential environmental damage or violations of environmental standards to appropriate authorities, even when such disclosure conflicts with client interests",
"derived_from_principle": "Public Safety and Welfare",
"duty_type": "professional",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Professional licensing board review, ethics committee investigation, potential license revocation",
"violation_consequences": "Professional discipline, loss of license, civil liability for environmental damages, reputational harm",
"examples_from_case": ["Doe's finding that discharge will lower water quality below standards", "Corporation presenting contradictory data at public hearing"],
"source_text": "Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards",
"confidence": 0.9,
"reasoning": "Existing ontology covers general Duty to Report but not specifically environmental harm disclosure which has unique regulatory and public health dimensions"
},
{
"label": "Duty of Professional Independence",
"definition": "Obligation requiring professionals to maintain independence in professional judgment and not allow client termination or payment to suppress truthful findings or prevent completion of professional work product",
"derived_from_principle": "Professional Integrity",
"duty_type": "professional",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Professional ethics board review, peer review processes",
"violation_consequences": "Ethics violations, professional discipline, damage to professional reputation",
"examples_from_case": ["Corporation terminating contract to prevent written report", "Doe being instructed not to render written report"],
"source_text": "the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report",
"confidence": 0.85,
"reasoning": "This addresses the specific obligation to resist client pressure to suppress findings, distinct from general ethical conduct"
},
{
"label": "Duty to Prevent Public Deception",
"definition": "Obligation requiring professionals to take action when they have knowledge that their client is presenting false or misleading information to public authorities or the public",
"derived_from_principle": "Honesty and Public Trust",
"duty_type": "ethical",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Professional ethics review, potential legal action for fraud",
"violation_consequences": "Complicity in fraud, professional sanctions, civil liability",
"examples_from_case": ["XYZ presenting data contradicting Doe's findings at public hearing"],
"source_text": "XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards",
"confidence": 0.85,
"reasoning": "Goes beyond general ethical conduct to address specific duty when professional knows client is misleading authorities"
},
{
"label": "Duty to Complete Professional Documentation",
"definition": "Obligation requiring professionals to document and preserve findings in written form, particularly when those findings have public safety or regulatory implications",
"derived_from_principle": "Professional Accountability",
"duty_type": "professional",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Professional standards review, regulatory requirements",
"violation_consequences": "Inability to prove findings, professional negligence claims, obstruction of regulatory processes",
"examples_from_case": ["Doe completing studies but being prevented from writing report", "Only verbal communication of critical findings"],
"source_text": "After completion of his studies but before completion of any written report, Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality",
"confidence": 0.8,
"reasoning": "Distinct from general duty of care, specifically addresses documentation requirements for findings with regulatory significance"
}
],
"obligation_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "DOE_ENVIRONMENTAL_DISCLOSURE_OBLIGATION",
"obligation_class": "Duty to Disclose Environmental Harm",
"obligated_party": "Engineer Doe",
"obligation_statement": "Disclose findings of environmental standards violations to the State Pollution Control Authority",
"derived_from": "Professional engineering ethics codes, Public Safety principle",
"enforcement_context": "State licensing board oversight, public hearing process",
"temporal_scope": "Upon discovery of environmental harm findings and ongoing during public hearing",
"compliance_status": "unclear",
"case_context": "Doe discovered discharge will lower water quality below standards but contract was terminated before written report; unclear if Doe disclosed to authority",
"source_text": "Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.9
},
{
"identifier": "DOE_DUTY_TO_REPORT_PUBLIC_HEARING",
"obligation_class": "Duty to Report (Obligation)",
"obligated_party": "Engineer Doe",
"obligation_statement": "Report accurate findings to appropriate authorities when public safety is at risk",
"derived_from": "NSPE Code, State engineering regulations",
"enforcement_context": "Public hearing called by authority provides forum for disclosure",
"temporal_scope": "When Doe learns of public hearing with contradictory data being presented",
"compliance_status": "pending",
"case_context": "Doe learns XYZ is presenting contradictory data at public hearing, creating obligation to correct the record",
"source_text": "Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.9
},
{
"identifier": "DOE_PROFESSIONAL_INDEPENDENCE_OBLIGATION",
"obligation_class": "Duty of Professional Independence",
"obligated_party": "Engineer Doe",
"obligation_statement": "Maintain professional independence and not allow contract termination to suppress truthful findings",
"derived_from": "Professional engineering ethics, integrity principles",
"enforcement_context": "Professional ethics board review",
"temporal_scope": "Upon contract termination with instruction not to produce written report",
"compliance_status": "unclear",
"case_context": "Doe accepted termination and payment without producing written report as instructed by client",
"source_text": "instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.85
},
{
"identifier": "DOE_PREVENT_DECEPTION_OBLIGATION",
"obligation_class": "Duty to Prevent Public Deception",
"obligated_party": "Engineer Doe",
"obligation_statement": "Take action to prevent client from deceiving public authority with false environmental data",
"derived_from": "Professional ethics, public trust principles",
"enforcement_context": "Public hearing process, regulatory oversight",
"temporal_scope": "Upon learning that XYZ presented contradictory data at public hearing",
"compliance_status": "pending",
"case_context": "Doe knows XYZ's data contradicts his findings but XYZ presented it as accurate to authority",
"source_text": "XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.85
},
{
"identifier": "DOE_FIDUCIARY_DUTY_TO_CLIENT",
"obligation_class": "Fiduciary Duty (Obligation)",
"obligated_party": "Engineer Doe",
"obligation_statement": "Act in client's interest within bounds of professional ethics and law",
"derived_from": "Professional consulting relationship, contract law",
"enforcement_context": "Contractual obligations, professional standards",
"temporal_scope": "During consulting engagement until termination",
"compliance_status": "met",
"case_context": "Doe performed services and verbally advised client of findings; received full payment",
"source_text": "the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.8
},
{
"identifier": "DOE_DUTY_OF_CARE_ENVIRONMENTAL",
"obligation_class": "Duty of Care (Obligation)",
"obligated_party": "Engineer Doe",
"obligation_statement": "Exercise professional competence in evaluating environmental impact of discharge",
"derived_from": "Professional engineering standards",
"enforcement_context": "Professional licensing requirements",
"temporal_scope": "During consulting engagement",
"compliance_status": "met",
"case_context": "Doe completed studies and reached professional conclusions about environmental impact",
"source_text": "the corporation employs Engineer Doe to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.9
},
{
"identifier": "DOE_DOCUMENTATION_OBLIGATION",
"obligation_class": "Duty to Complete Professional Documentation",
"obligated_party": "Engineer Doe",
"obligation_statement": "Document findings in written report given their regulatory and public safety significance",
"derived_from": "Professional standards, regulatory requirements",
"enforcement_context": "Professional standards review",
"temporal_scope": "Upon completion of studies with significant findings",
"compliance_status": "unmet",
"case_context": "Doe completed studies but did not produce written report as instructed by client",
"source_text": "After completion of his studies but before completion of any written report",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.8
},
{
"identifier": "XYZ_ETHICAL_CONDUCT_OBLIGATION",
"obligation_class": "Ethical Conduct (Obligation)",
"obligated_party": "XYZ Corporation",
"obligation_statement": "Present accurate data to regulatory authorities",
"derived_from": "Regulatory compliance, corporate ethics",
"enforcement_context": "State Pollution Control Authority oversight, permit process",
"temporal_scope": "During permit application and public hearing process",
"compliance_status": "unmet",
"case_context": "XYZ presented data contradicting engineer's findings that discharge violates standards",
"source_text": "XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards",
"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 facts section:
The XYZ Corporation has been advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it has 60 days to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing wastes into a receiving body of water. XYZ is also advised of the minimum standard that must be met.
In an effort to convince the authority that the receiving body of water after receiving the manufacturing wastes will still meet established environmental standards, the corporation employs Engineer Doe to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report.
After completion of his studies but before completion of any written report, Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards. He further concludes that corrective action will be very costly. Doe verbally advises the XYZ Corporation of his findings. Subsequently, the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation.
Thereafter, Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards.
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: 2026-01-17 09:20
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_constraint_classes": [
{
"label": "Regulatory Compliance Deadline",
"definition": "Temporal constraint imposed by regulatory authority requiring action within specified timeframe",
"constraint_type": "temporal",
"flexibility": "hard",
"violation_impact": "Legal penalties, loss of operating permits, potential facility shutdown",
"mitigation_possible": "May request extension from regulatory authority, but not guaranteed",
"examples_from_case": ["60-day deadline to apply for discharge permit"],
"source_text": "XYZ Corporation has been advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it has 60 days to apply for a permit",
"confidence": 0.95,
"reasoning": "Existing ontology focuses on ethical code constraints; this is a regulatory temporal constraint that bounds when actions must occur"
},
{
"label": "Environmental Standard Threshold",
"definition": "Physical/legal constraint defining minimum acceptable environmental quality levels that cannot be exceeded",
"constraint_type": "legal",
"flexibility": "hard",
"violation_impact": "Permit denial, legal action, environmental damage, public health risks",
"mitigation_possible": "Corrective engineering measures can bring discharge into compliance",
"examples_from_case": ["Minimum discharge standards", "Established environmental standards for water quality"],
"source_text": "XYZ is also advised of the minimum standard that must be met",
"confidence": 0.95,
"reasoning": "This is a regulatory/physical constraint on environmental impact, distinct from ethical code provisions in existing ontology"
},
{
"label": "Contractual Service Termination",
"definition": "Constraint on professional's ability to continue work or deliver products when client terminates engagement",
"constraint_type": "procedural",
"flexibility": "hard",
"violation_impact": "Breach of contract, potential legal liability for unauthorized work product delivery",
"mitigation_possible": "Professional may have independent ethical duties that supersede contractual constraints",
"examples_from_case": ["Termination of Doe's contract", "Instruction not to render written report"],
"source_text": "the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report",
"confidence": 0.90,
"reasoning": "This represents a contractual limitation on professional action, distinct from ethics code constraints in existing ontology"
},
{
"label": "Client Confidentiality Boundary",
"definition": "Constraint limiting disclosure of information obtained through professional engagement to third parties",
"constraint_type": "procedural",
"flexibility": "soft",
"violation_impact": "Breach of professional duty, potential legal liability, loss of professional reputation",
"mitigation_possible": "May be overridden by public safety concerns or legal requirements",
"examples_from_case": ["Doe's verbal findings to XYZ", "Question of whether Doe can disclose to authority"],
"source_text": "Doe verbally advises the XYZ Corporation of his findings",
"confidence": 0.85,
"reasoning": "While related to non-deception, this specifically addresses boundaries on information disclosure rather than active deception"
}
],
"constraint_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "XYZ-60-Day-Permit-Deadline",
"constraint_class": "Regulatory Compliance Deadline",
"constrained_entity": "XYZ Corporation",
"constraint_statement": "Must apply for discharge permit within 60 days of notification",
"source": "State Pollution Control Authority",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Regulatory authority enforcement, potential penalties for non-compliance",
"temporal_scope": "60 days from notification",
"severity": "critical",
"case_context": "Creates time pressure driving XYZ's decision to hire and then terminate Doe",
"source_text": "it has 60 days to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing wastes into a receiving body of water",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.95
},
{
"identifier": "Discharge-Quality-Standard",
"constraint_class": "Environmental Standard Threshold",
"constrained_entity": "XYZ Corporation discharge",
"constraint_statement": "Discharge must not lower receiving water quality below established environmental standards",
"source": "State Pollution Control Authority / Environmental law",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Permit denial, regulatory enforcement",
"temporal_scope": "Ongoing operational requirement",
"severity": "critical",
"case_context": "Doe's analysis found discharge would violate this constraint, triggering the ethical dilemma",
"source_text": "the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.95
},
{
"identifier": "Doe-Contract-Termination-Restriction",
"constraint_class": "Contractual Service Termination",
"constrained_entity": "Engineer Doe",
"constraint_statement": "Cannot deliver written report to XYZ Corporation after contract termination",
"source": "XYZ Corporation (client instruction)",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Contractual terms, potential breach of contract claim",
"temporal_scope": "Post-termination",
"severity": "major",
"case_context": "XYZ terminated Doe specifically to prevent written documentation of negative findings",
"source_text": "terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.90
},
{
"identifier": "Doe-Non-Deception-Public-Hearing",
"constraint_class": "Non-Deception (Constraint)",
"constrained_entity": "Engineer Doe",
"constraint_statement": "Cannot allow false or misleading information to stand unchallenged when public safety is at risk",
"source": "Professional ethics code",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Professional licensing board, ethics code enforcement",
"temporal_scope": "During and after public hearing process",
"severity": "critical",
"case_context": "XYZ presented data claiming compliance when Doe knows discharge violates standards",
"source_text": "XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.90
},
{
"identifier": "Doe-Scope-of-Practice-Limitation",
"constraint_class": "Scope of Practice (Constraint)",
"constrained_entity": "Engineer Doe",
"constraint_statement": "Must limit professional opinions to areas within engineering competence and based on adequate study",
"source": "Professional ethics code",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Professional licensing board",
"temporal_scope": "Throughout engagement",
"severity": "major",
"case_context": "Doe completed studies before reaching conclusions, establishing competent basis for findings",
"source_text": "After completion of his studies but before completion of any written report, Doe concludes",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.85
},
{
"identifier": "Costly-Corrective-Action-Resource-Constraint",
"constraint_class": "Environmental Standard Threshold",
"constrained_entity": "XYZ Corporation",
"constraint_statement": "Achieving compliance requires very costly corrective measures",
"source": "Engineering analysis by Doe",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Economic reality / regulatory requirement",
"temporal_scope": "Pre-permit approval",
"severity": "major",
"case_context": "High cost of compliance motivated XYZ to terminate Doe and present alternative data",
"source_text": "He further concludes that corrective action will be very costly",
"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 facts section:
The XYZ Corporation has been advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it has 60 days to apply for a permit to discharge manufacturing wastes into a receiving body of water. XYZ is also advised of the minimum standard that must be met.
In an effort to convince the authority that the receiving body of water after receiving the manufacturing wastes will still meet established environmental standards, the corporation employs Engineer Doe to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report.
After completion of his studies but before completion of any written report, Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards. He further concludes that corrective action will be very costly. Doe verbally advises the XYZ Corporation of his findings. Subsequently, the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation.
Thereafter, Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards.
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: 2026-01-17 09:21
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_capability_classes": [
{
"label": "Environmental Impact Assessment Competency",
"definition": "The technical and analytical ability to evaluate how industrial discharges affect receiving water bodies and compare results against established environmental standards",
"capability_type": "technical",
"norm_competence_related": "Enables engineers to provide accurate, objective assessments of environmental impacts as required by professional duty to protect public welfare",
"skill_level": "expert",
"acquisition_method": "Advanced education in environmental engineering, specialized training in water quality analysis, and practical experience with regulatory compliance studies",
"examples_from_case": ["Conducting studies on discharge effects on water quality", "Comparing discharge impacts to established standards"],
"source_text": "the corporation employs Engineer Doe to perform consulting engineering services and submit a detailed report",
"confidence": 0.9,
"reasoning": "Specific competency combining technical water quality analysis with regulatory standard comparison not typically captured in general engineering capability classes"
},
{
"label": "Adverse Finding Communication Competency",
"definition": "The professional skill to communicate unfavorable technical conclusions to clients in a clear, professional manner while maintaining ethical obligations",
"capability_type": "communicative",
"norm_competence_related": "Enables fulfillment of duty to provide honest, complete information to clients even when findings are unwelcome",
"skill_level": "advanced",
"acquisition_method": "Professional experience, ethics training, and development of interpersonal communication skills in difficult professional situations",
"examples_from_case": ["Verbally advising corporation of negative findings", "Communicating costly corrective action requirements"],
"source_text": "Doe verbally advises the XYZ Corporation of his findings",
"confidence": 0.85,
"reasoning": "Distinct competency for delivering unwelcome professional conclusions that differs from general communication skills"
},
{
"label": "Post-Engagement Ethical Judgment Competency",
"definition": "The ethical reasoning ability to determine appropriate professional conduct after a client relationship has been terminated, particularly regarding information obtained during engagement",
"capability_type": "ethical",
"norm_competence_related": "Enables navigation of competing duties of client confidentiality versus public welfare protection after contract termination",
"skill_level": "advanced",
"acquisition_method": "Ethics education, professional code study, mentorship, and experience with complex professional situations",
"examples_from_case": ["Determining obligations after contract termination", "Evaluating response to public hearing with potentially misleading data"],
"source_text": "the corporation terminates the contract with Doe with full payment for services performed, and instructs Doe not to render a written report",
"confidence": 0.9,
"reasoning": "Novel competency addressing the specific ethical challenges arising after professional engagement ends but relevant information remains"
},
{
"label": "Regulatory Compliance Analysis Competency",
"definition": "The analytical ability to interpret regulatory requirements, permit conditions, and minimum standards to assess whether industrial operations meet legal environmental thresholds",
"capability_type": "analytical",
"norm_competence_related": "Enables accurate determination of compliance status essential for honest reporting to regulatory authorities",
"skill_level": "expert",
"acquisition_method": "Legal and regulatory training, environmental engineering education, experience with permit applications and regulatory proceedings",
"examples_from_case": ["Evaluating discharge against minimum standards", "Understanding permit application requirements"],
"source_text": "XYZ Corporation has been advised by a State Pollution Control Authority that it has 60 days to apply for a permit",
"confidence": 0.85,
"reasoning": "Specialized competency bridging technical analysis and regulatory interpretation not captured in general analytical categories"
},
{
"label": "Public Interest Whistleblowing Judgment Competency",
"definition": "The ethical and analytical competency to evaluate when professional knowledge of potential public harm creates an obligation to disclose information despite confidentiality constraints",
"capability_type": "ethical",
"norm_competence_related": "Enables determination of when duty to protect public welfare overrides duty of confidentiality to former clients",
"skill_level": "expert",
"acquisition_method": "Deep study of professional ethics codes, case law analysis, ethics continuing education, and mentorship from experienced professionals",
"examples_from_case": ["Evaluating whether to intervene in public hearing", "Assessing corporation's potentially misleading data presentation"],
"source_text": "Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing and that the XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view",
"confidence": 0.9,
"reasoning": "Critical ethical competency for navigating the specific tension between confidentiality and public protection obligations"
}
],
"capability_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "Doe_Environmental_Assessment_Capability",
"capability_class": "Environmental Impact Assessment Competency",
"possessed_by": "Engineer Doe",
"capability_statement": "Ability to conduct comprehensive studies on manufacturing waste discharge impacts on receiving water bodies",
"demonstrated_through": "Completion of environmental studies and reaching definitive conclusions about water quality impacts",
"proficiency_level": "expert",
"enables_obligations": "Duty to provide competent professional services; duty to protect public health and environment",
"temporal_aspect": "During consulting engagement with XYZ Corporation",
"case_context": "Doe was specifically hired for his expertise in environmental assessment and successfully completed technical studies",
"source_text": "the corporation employs Engineer Doe to perform consulting engineering services",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.9
},
{
"identifier": "Doe_Technical_Conclusion_Capability",
"capability_class": "Environmental Impact Assessment Competency",
"possessed_by": "Engineer Doe",
"capability_statement": "Ability to determine that discharge will lower water quality below established standards",
"demonstrated_through": "Reaching definitive technical conclusion after completing studies",
"proficiency_level": "expert",
"enables_obligations": "Duty to form independent professional judgment; duty to provide accurate technical opinions",
"temporal_aspect": "After completion of studies, before written report",
"case_context": "Doe concluded discharge would violate standards, demonstrating technical competence to make such determinations",
"source_text": "Doe concludes that the discharge from the plant will lower the quality of the receiving body of water below established standards",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.95
},
{
"identifier": "Doe_Cost_Assessment_Capability",
"capability_class": "Regulatory Compliance Analysis Competency",
"possessed_by": "Engineer Doe",
"capability_statement": "Ability to evaluate that corrective action for compliance will be very costly",
"demonstrated_through": "Professional judgment on remediation costs",
"proficiency_level": "advanced",
"enables_obligations": "Duty to provide complete information to client including cost implications",
"temporal_aspect": "During analysis phase of engagement",
"case_context": "Doe assessed not only technical compliance but also economic implications of required corrections",
"source_text": "He further concludes that corrective action will be very costly",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.8
},
{
"identifier": "Doe_Adverse_Communication_Capability",
"capability_class": "Adverse Finding Communication Competency",
"possessed_by": "Engineer Doe",
"capability_statement": "Ability to verbally communicate unfavorable findings to client",
"demonstrated_through": "Direct verbal communication of negative conclusions to XYZ Corporation",
"proficiency_level": "advanced",
"enables_obligations": "Duty of honesty to client; duty to provide complete professional opinions",
"temporal_aspect": "After completing studies, before contract termination",
"case_context": "Doe fulfilled communication obligation by informing client of adverse findings despite knowing they were unwelcome",
"source_text": "Doe verbally advises the XYZ Corporation of his findings",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.85
},
{
"identifier": "Doe_Post_Termination_Ethical_Judgment",
"capability_class": "Post-Engagement Ethical Judgment Competency",
"possessed_by": "Engineer Doe",
"capability_statement": "Ability to evaluate ethical obligations after contract termination regarding confidential information",
"demonstrated_through": "Facing decision about whether to act on knowledge after learning of public hearing",
"proficiency_level": "advanced",
"enables_obligations": "Duty to protect public welfare; duty of confidentiality to former client",
"temporal_aspect": "After contract termination, upon learning of public hearing",
"case_context": "Doe must exercise ethical judgment about competing obligations when corporation presents potentially misleading data",
"source_text": "Thereafter, Doe learns that the authority has called a public hearing",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.9
},
{
"identifier": "Doe_Whistleblowing_Judgment_Capability",
"capability_class": "Public Interest Whistleblowing Judgment Competency",
"possessed_by": "Engineer Doe",
"capability_statement": "Ability to evaluate whether public welfare requires disclosure of information contradicting corporation's claims",
"demonstrated_through": "Confronting decision about whether to intervene in public hearing process",
"proficiency_level": "advanced",
"enables_obligations": "Duty to protect public health and safety; duty to prevent deception of regulatory authorities",
"temporal_aspect": "After learning corporation presented data supporting compliance at public hearing",
"case_context": "Doe possesses knowledge that corporation's data presentation may be misleading and must decide whether to act",
"source_text": "XYZ Corporation has presented data to support its view that the present discharge meets minimum standards",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.9
},
{
"identifier": "Doe_Professional_Licensing_Capability",
"capability_class": "Professional Engineering Competency",
"possessed_by": "Engineer Doe",
"capability_statement": "Qualified to perform consulting engineering services for environmental compliance matters",
"demonstrated_through": "Being hired by corporation for specialized consulting work",
"proficiency_level": "expert",
"enables_obligations": "All professional engineering obligations under licensing requirements",
"temporal_aspect": "Throughout the case",
"case_context": "Doe's status as a qualified engineer is foundational to all his professional obligations in this matter",
"source_text": "the corporation employs Engineer Doe to perform consulting engineering services",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.85
},
{
"identifier": "Doe_Report_Writing_Capability",
"capability_class": "Technical Documentation Competency",
"possessed_by": "Engineer Doe",
"capability_statement": "Ability to prepare detailed written engineering reports on environmental compliance",
"demonstrated_through": "Being contracted to submit detailed report (though prevented from completing)",
"proficiency_level": "advanced",
"enables_obligations": "Duty to document professional findings; duty to provide written professional opinions",
"temporal_aspect": "Contracted capability that was prevented from being exercised",
"case_context": "Corporation specifically instructed Doe not to render written report, preventing exercise of this capability",
"source_text": "instructs Doe not to render a written report to the corporation",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.8
}
]
}
```