Step 2: Normative Requirements Pass (Discussion Section)
Extract principles, obligations, constraints, and capabilities from the discussion section
Public Welfare - Knowledge of Information Damaging to Client's Interest
Step 2 of 5
Discussion Section
Section Content:
Discussion: Section 1 of the code is clear in providing that the engineer "will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee." In this spirit Engineer Doe has advised the XYZ Corporation that the results of his studies indicate that the established standards will in his opinion be violated. His verbal advice to the corporation would seem to meet the letter and spirit of §§1 and 1(c). The termination of Doe’s contract with full payment for services rendered is a business decision which we will presume is permitted by the terms of the engineering services contract between Doe and his client. Doe, however, has reason to question why the corporation specifically stipulates that he not render a written report. Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare. Section 2(a) requires that his duty to the public be paramount. In this case, it is presumed that a failure to meet the minimum standards established by law is detrimental to the public health and safety. We note that we have not heretofore during the entire existence of the board had occasion to interpret §2(c) of the code. That portion of §2(c) which requires the engineer to report any request for "unprofessional" conduct to "proper authorities" is particularly pertinent in the situation before us. The client’s action instructing Doe to not render a written report when coupled with XYZ’s testimony at the hearing raises the question of Doe’s obligation under §2(c). We interpret the language in the context of the facts to mean that it would now be "unprofessional conduct" for Doe to not take further action to protect the public interest. It is not material, in our view, that the subject matter does not involve plans and specifications as stipulated in §2(c). We interpret "plans and specifications" in this section to include all engineering instruments of service. That particular reference must be read in light of the overall thrust of §§2 and 2(a), both of which indicate clearly that the paramount duty of the engineer is to protect the public safety, health and welfare in a broad context. As we noted in Case No. 67-10, even though involving unrelated facts and circumstances, "It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in §2 and §2(a) of the code." Section 7 of the code does not give us pause because the action of the engineer in advising proper authority of the apparent danger to the public interest will not in this case be disclosing the technical processes or business affairs of the client. Note: The following Code sections no longer exist: Code of Ethics-Section 1-"The Engineer will be guided in all his professional relations by the highest standards of integrity, and will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee." Section 1(c)-"He will advise his client or employer when he believes a project will not be successful." Section 2-"The Engineer will have proper regard for the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance of his professional duties. If his engineering judgment is overruled by nontechnical authority, he will clearly point out the consequences. He will notify the proper authority of any observed conditions which endanger public safety and health." Section 2(a)- "He will regard his duty to the public welfare as paramount." Section 2(c)-"He will not complete, sign or seal plans and/or specifications that are not of a design safe to the public health and welfare and in conformity with accepted engineering standards. If the client or employer insists on such unprofessional conduct, he shall notify the proper authorities and withdraw from further service on the project." Section 7-"The Engineer will not disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer without his consent."
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:
Section 1 of the code is clear in providing that the engineer "will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee." In this spirit Engineer Doe has advised the XYZ Corporation that the results of his studies indicate that the established standards will in his opinion be violated. His verbal advice to the corporation would seem to meet the letter and spirit of §§1 and 1(c).
The termination of Doe’s contract with full payment for services rendered is a business decision which we will presume is permitted by the terms of the engineering services contract between Doe and his client. Doe, however, has reason to question why the corporation specifically stipulates that he not render a written report. Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare. Section 2(a) requires that his duty to the public be paramount. In this case, it is presumed that a failure to meet the minimum standards established by law is detrimental to the public health and safety.
We note that we have not heretofore during the entire existence of the board had occasion to interpret §2(c) of the code. That portion of §2(c) which requires the engineer to report any request for "unprofessional" conduct to "proper authorities" is particularly pertinent in the situation before us. The client’s action instructing Doe to not render a written report when coupled with XYZ’s testimony at the hearing raises the question of Doe’s obligation under §2(c). We interpret the language in the context of the facts to mean that it would now be "unprofessional conduct" for Doe to not take further action to protect the public interest.
It is not material, in our view, that the subject matter does not involve plans and specifications as stipulated in §2(c). We interpret "plans and specifications" in this section to include all engineering instruments of service. That particular reference must be read in light of the overall thrust of §§2 and 2(a), both of which indicate clearly that the paramount duty of the engineer is to protect the public safety, health and welfare in a broad context. As we noted in Case No. 67-10, even though involving unrelated facts and circumstances, "It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in §2 and §2(a) of the code."
Section 7 of the code does not give us pause because the action of the engineer in advising proper authority of the apparent danger to the public interest will not in this case be disclosing the technical processes or business affairs of the client.
Note: The following Code sections no longer exist:
Code of Ethics -Section 1-"The Engineer will be guided in all his professional relations by the highest standards of integrity, and will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee."
Section 1(c)-"He will advise his client or employer when he believes a project will not be successful."
Section 2-"The Engineer will have proper regard for the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance of his professional duties. If his engineering judgment is overruled by nontechnical authority, he will clearly point out the consequences. He will notify the proper authority of any observed conditions which endanger public safety and health."
Section 2(a)- "He will regard his duty to the public welfare as paramount."
Section 2(c)-"He will not complete, sign or seal plans and/or specifications that are not of a design safe to the public health and welfare and in conformity with accepted engineering standards. If the client or employer insists on such unprofessional conduct, he shall notify the proper authorities and withdraw from further service on the project."
Section 7-"The Engineer will not disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer without his consent."
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 09:22
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_principle_classes": [
{
"label": "Faithful Agency",
"definition": "Principle that engineers must act as loyal representatives serving their clients' or employers' legitimate interests with integrity and trustworthiness",
"abstract_nature": "Fiduciary duty and professional trustworthiness",
"extensional_examples": ["Acting in client's best interest", "Providing honest technical advice", "Maintaining trust relationship", "Serving as reliable technical representative"],
"value_basis": "Trust, loyalty, and professional integrity in service relationships",
"application_context": ["Client-engineer relationships", "Employment relationships", "Consulting engagements"],
"operationalization": "Through honest advice, protecting client interests within ethical bounds, transparent communication about project viability",
"balancing_requirements": ["Public Safety", "Professional Integrity", "Legal Compliance"],
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer Doe advised XYZ Corporation that standards would be violated", "Acting as faithful agent while maintaining professional integrity"],
"source_text": "The Engineer will be guided in all his professional relations by the highest standards of integrity, and will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee."
},
{
"label": "Whistleblowing Duty",
"definition": "Principle that engineers have an affirmative obligation to report unprofessional conduct and dangers to public safety to proper authorities when internal channels fail",
"abstract_nature": "Professional responsibility to protect public through disclosure",
"extensional_examples": ["Reporting safety violations to regulatory bodies", "Disclosing client requests for unprofessional conduct", "Alerting authorities to public dangers"],
"value_basis": "Professional accountability and public protection transcending private interests",
"application_context": ["Situations where client refuses to address safety concerns", "Requests to conceal violations", "Observed conditions endangering public"],
"operationalization": "Through reporting to proper authorities, withdrawal from projects, documentation of concerns",
"balancing_requirements": ["Confidentiality", "Faithful Agency", "Client Relationships"],
"examples_from_case": ["Doe confronted with obligation to report when XYZ suppressed written report", "Unprofessional not to take further action to protect public interest"],
"source_text": "That portion of §2(c) which requires the engineer to report any request for 'unprofessional' conduct to 'proper authorities' is particularly pertinent in the situation before us."
}
],
"principle_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "FaithfulAgency_Case76-4_Discussion",
"principle_class": "Faithful Agency",
"concrete_expression": "The Engineer will be guided in all his professional relations by the highest standards of integrity, and will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee.",
"invoked_by": ["NSPE Board of Ethical Review"],
"applied_to": ["Engineer Doe's advisory relationship with XYZ Corporation"],
"interpretation": "Faithful agency requires honest technical advice about standards violations, which Doe provided verbally",
"source_text": "Section 1 of the code is clear in providing that the engineer 'will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee.' In this spirit Engineer Doe has advised the XYZ Corporation that the results of his studies indicate that the established standards will in his opinion be violated.",
"balancing_with": ["Public Safety", "Professional Integrity"],
"tension_resolution": "Faithful agency operates within bounds of professional integrity - honest advice even when unfavorable",
"case_relevance": "Establishes that Doe initially fulfilled his duty to client through verbal warning about violations"
},
{
"identifier": "PublicSafety_Case76-4_Discussion",
"principle_class": "Public Safety",
"concrete_expression": "He will regard his duty to the public welfare as paramount.",
"invoked_by": ["NSPE Board of Ethical Review"],
"applied_to": ["Doe's decision whether to report violations to hearing authorities"],
"interpretation": "Public safety duty is paramount and overrides confidentiality obligations when violations endanger public health",
"source_text": "Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare. Section 2(a) requires that his duty to the public be paramount.",
"balancing_with": ["Confidentiality", "Faithful Agency", "Client Interests"],
"tension_resolution": "Public safety takes precedence - failure to meet minimum legal standards is presumed detrimental to public",
"case_relevance": "Central principle requiring Doe to take action beyond initial client advice when public hearing reveals ongoing danger"
},
{
"identifier": "Confidentiality_Case76-4_Discussion",
"principle_class": "Confidentiality",
"concrete_expression": "The Engineer will not disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer without his consent.",
"invoked_by": ["NSPE Board of Ethical Review"],
"applied_to": ["Whether Doe can report to authorities without violating client confidentiality"],
"interpretation": "Confidentiality does not bar disclosure when reporting public safety concerns - advising authorities of danger does not require disclosing technical processes or business affairs",
"source_text": "Section 7 of the code does not give us pause because the action of the engineer in advising proper authority of the apparent danger to the public interest will not in this case be disclosing the technical processes or business affairs of the client.",
"balancing_with": ["Public Safety", "Whistleblowing Duty"],
"tension_resolution": "Confidentiality is interpreted narrowly - safety warnings can be given without revealing protected information",
"case_relevance": "Removes potential barrier to Doe's reporting obligation by distinguishing safety reporting from confidential disclosure"
},
{
"identifier": "WhistleblowingDuty_Case76-4_Discussion",
"principle_class": "Whistleblowing Duty",
"concrete_expression": "We interpret the language in the context of the facts to mean that it would now be 'unprofessional conduct' for Doe to not take further action to protect the public interest.",
"invoked_by": ["NSPE Board of Ethical Review"],
"applied_to": ["Doe's obligation to report to proper authorities after client suppresses written report"],
"interpretation": "Novel interpretation - failure to report becomes unprofessional conduct when client actively suppresses documentation and public hearing reveals ongoing violation",
"source_text": "The client's action instructing Doe to not render a written report when coupled with XYZ's testimony at the hearing raises the question of Doe's obligation under §2(c). We interpret the language in the context of the facts to mean that it would now be 'unprofessional conduct' for Doe to not take further action to protect the public interest.",
"balancing_with": ["Faithful Agency", "Confidentiality", "Client Relationship"],
"tension_resolution": "Affirmative duty to report arises when client's suppression of information actively endangers public",
"case_relevance": "First-time interpretation establishing that passive compliance with client suppression constitutes unprofessional conduct"
},
{
"identifier": "PublicWelfare_Case76-4_Discussion",
"principle_class": "Public Safety",
"concrete_expression": "It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare",
"invoked_by": ["NSPE Board of Ethical Review"],
"applied_to": ["Broad interpretation of engineer's instruments of service beyond plans and specifications"],
"interpretation": "Public welfare duty extends to all engineering services, not just formal plans - 'instruments of service' interpreted expansively",
"source_text": "We interpret 'plans and specifications' in this section to include all engineering instruments of service. That particular reference must be read in light of the overall thrust of §§2 and 2(a), both of which indicate clearly that the paramount duty of the engineer is to protect the public safety, health and welfare in a broad context.",
"balancing_with": ["Literal Code Interpretation", "Technical Scope Limitations"],
"tension_resolution": "Broad purposive interpretation of code language to serve paramount public welfare principle",
"case_relevance": "Establishes that Doe's studies fall within scope of professional duty despite not being formal plans/specifications"
},
{
"identifier": "Honesty_Case76-4_Discussion",
"principle_class": "Honesty",
"concrete_expression": "He will advise his client or employer when he believes a project will not be successful.",
"invoked_by": ["NSPE Board of Ethical Review"],
"applied_to": ["Doe's verbal advice to XYZ Corporation about standards violations"],
"interpretation": "Honest advice requires informing client of adverse findings even when client may not want to hear them",
"source_text": "In this spirit Engineer Doe has advised the XYZ Corporation that the results of his studies indicate that the established standards will in his opinion be violated. His verbal advice to the corporation would seem to meet the letter and spirit of §§1 and 1(c).",
"balancing_with": ["Client Satisfaction", "Business Interests"],
"tension_resolution": "Professional honesty duty fulfilled through verbal communication of adverse findings",
"case_relevance": "Establishes Doe met initial honesty obligation but this alone proves insufficient when client suppresses information"
}
]
}
```
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:
Section 1 of the code is clear in providing that the engineer "will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee." In this spirit Engineer Doe has advised the XYZ Corporation that the results of his studies indicate that the established standards will in his opinion be violated. His verbal advice to the corporation would seem to meet the letter and spirit of §§1 and 1(c).
The termination of Doe’s contract with full payment for services rendered is a business decision which we will presume is permitted by the terms of the engineering services contract between Doe and his client. Doe, however, has reason to question why the corporation specifically stipulates that he not render a written report. Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare. Section 2(a) requires that his duty to the public be paramount. In this case, it is presumed that a failure to meet the minimum standards established by law is detrimental to the public health and safety.
We note that we have not heretofore during the entire existence of the board had occasion to interpret §2(c) of the code. That portion of §2(c) which requires the engineer to report any request for "unprofessional" conduct to "proper authorities" is particularly pertinent in the situation before us. The client’s action instructing Doe to not render a written report when coupled with XYZ’s testimony at the hearing raises the question of Doe’s obligation under §2(c). We interpret the language in the context of the facts to mean that it would now be "unprofessional conduct" for Doe to not take further action to protect the public interest.
It is not material, in our view, that the subject matter does not involve plans and specifications as stipulated in §2(c). We interpret "plans and specifications" in this section to include all engineering instruments of service. That particular reference must be read in light of the overall thrust of §§2 and 2(a), both of which indicate clearly that the paramount duty of the engineer is to protect the public safety, health and welfare in a broad context. As we noted in Case No. 67-10, even though involving unrelated facts and circumstances, "It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in §2 and §2(a) of the code."
Section 7 of the code does not give us pause because the action of the engineer in advising proper authority of the apparent danger to the public interest will not in this case be disclosing the technical processes or business affairs of the client.
Note: The following Code sections no longer exist:
Code of Ethics -Section 1-"The Engineer will be guided in all his professional relations by the highest standards of integrity, and will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee."
Section 1(c)-"He will advise his client or employer when he believes a project will not be successful."
Section 2-"The Engineer will have proper regard for the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance of his professional duties. If his engineering judgment is overruled by nontechnical authority, he will clearly point out the consequences. He will notify the proper authority of any observed conditions which endanger public safety and health."
Section 2(a)- "He will regard his duty to the public welfare as paramount."
Section 2(c)-"He will not complete, sign or seal plans and/or specifications that are not of a design safe to the public health and welfare and in conformity with accepted engineering standards. If the client or employer insists on such unprofessional conduct, he shall notify the proper authorities and withdraw from further service on the project."
Section 7-"The Engineer will not disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer without his consent."
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 09:22
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_obligation_classes": [
{
"label": "Faithful Agent Duty",
"definition": "Obligation requiring engineers to act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee, maintaining highest standards of integrity",
"derived_from_principle": "Professional Integrity",
"duty_type": "professional",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Professional ethics board review and disciplinary action",
"violation_consequences": "Loss of professional standing, potential license revocation",
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer Doe advised XYZ Corporation that results indicate established standards will be violated"],
"source_text": "The Engineer will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee.",
"confidence": 0.9,
"reasoning": "Distinct from existing Fiduciary Duty as it specifically addresses the agent/trustee relationship in professional engineering matters"
},
{
"label": "Public Welfare Paramount Duty",
"definition": "Obligation requiring engineers to regard their duty to public welfare as paramount above all other professional considerations including client interests",
"derived_from_principle": "Public Safety",
"duty_type": "professional",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Ethics board enforcement, professional code compliance review",
"violation_consequences": "Professional sanctions, potential liability for public harm",
"examples_from_case": ["Doe is confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare"],
"source_text": "Section 2(a) requires that his duty to the public be paramount.",
"confidence": 0.95,
"reasoning": "Extends beyond general Duty of Care by establishing explicit hierarchy where public welfare supersedes client obligations"
},
{
"label": "Duty to Report Unprofessional Conduct Requests",
"definition": "Obligation requiring engineers to report any client or employer request for unprofessional conduct to proper authorities",
"derived_from_principle": "Public Safety",
"duty_type": "professional",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Ethics board review under Section 2(c) provisions",
"violation_consequences": "Finding of unprofessional conduct, disciplinary action",
"examples_from_case": ["Client instructing Doe to not render written report when coupled with testimony raises obligation under §2(c)"],
"source_text": "That portion of §2(c) which requires the engineer to report any request for 'unprofessional' conduct to 'proper authorities'",
"confidence": 0.9,
"reasoning": "Distinct from general Duty to Report as it specifically addresses reporting requests for unprofessional conduct, not just observed conditions"
},
{
"label": "Duty to Advise on Project Viability",
"definition": "Obligation requiring engineers to advise clients or employers when they believe a project will not be successful or will violate standards",
"derived_from_principle": "Professional Honesty",
"duty_type": "professional",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Professional ethics code compliance review",
"violation_consequences": "Professional misconduct finding, potential liability",
"examples_from_case": ["Engineer Doe has advised the XYZ Corporation that the results of his studies indicate that the established standards will be violated"],
"source_text": "He will advise his client or employer when he believes a project will not be successful.",
"confidence": 0.85,
"reasoning": "Specific obligation to proactively communicate negative assessments, distinct from general ethical conduct"
},
{
"label": "Duty to Refuse Unsafe Designs",
"definition": "Obligation requiring engineers to not complete, sign, or seal plans and specifications that are not safe to public health and welfare",
"derived_from_principle": "Public Safety",
"duty_type": "professional",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Professional licensing board review, ethics code enforcement",
"violation_consequences": "License revocation, professional sanctions, legal liability",
"examples_from_case": ["Failure to meet minimum standards established by law is detrimental to public health and safety"],
"source_text": "He will not complete, sign or seal plans and/or specifications that are not of a design safe to the public health and welfare",
"confidence": 0.9,
"reasoning": "Specific prohibition obligation distinct from general duty of care, involves active refusal to certify unsafe work"
}
],
"obligation_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "Doe_Faithful_Agent_Obligation",
"obligation_class": "Faithful Agent Duty",
"obligated_party": "Engineer Doe",
"obligation_statement": "Act as faithful agent or trustee for XYZ Corporation in professional matters",
"derived_from": "NSPE Code Section 1",
"enforcement_context": "Ethics board case review",
"temporal_scope": "Duration of professional engagement with XYZ Corporation",
"compliance_status": "met",
"case_context": "Doe fulfilled this by verbally advising XYZ Corporation that established standards would be violated",
"source_text": "In this spirit Engineer Doe has advised the XYZ Corporation that the results of his studies indicate that the established standards will in his opinion be violated.",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.9
},
{
"identifier": "Doe_Public_Welfare_Paramount_Obligation",
"obligation_class": "Public Welfare Paramount Duty",
"obligated_party": "Engineer Doe",
"obligation_statement": "Regard duty to public welfare as paramount over client interests",
"derived_from": "NSPE Code Section 2(a)",
"enforcement_context": "Ethics board determination of paramount duty",
"temporal_scope": "Upon learning of the hearing and public safety implications",
"compliance_status": "pending",
"case_context": "Doe is confronted with choosing between client confidentiality and public safety obligations",
"source_text": "Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare.",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.95
},
{
"identifier": "Doe_Report_Unprofessional_Conduct_Obligation",
"obligation_class": "Duty to Report Unprofessional Conduct Requests",
"obligated_party": "Engineer Doe",
"obligation_statement": "Report client's request to suppress written report to proper authorities",
"derived_from": "NSPE Code Section 2(c)",
"enforcement_context": "First-time interpretation of Section 2(c) by ethics board",
"temporal_scope": "Upon client instructing Doe not to render written report",
"compliance_status": "pending",
"case_context": "Client's stipulation against written report combined with hearing testimony triggers reporting obligation",
"source_text": "The client's action instructing Doe to not render a written report when coupled with XYZ's testimony at the hearing raises the question of Doe's obligation under §2(c).",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.9
},
{
"identifier": "Doe_Take_Action_Protect_Public_Obligation",
"obligation_class": "Public Welfare Paramount Duty",
"obligated_party": "Engineer Doe",
"obligation_statement": "Take further action to protect the public interest beyond verbal advice",
"derived_from": "NSPE Code Sections 2 and 2(a)",
"enforcement_context": "Ethics board interpretation that inaction would constitute unprofessional conduct",
"temporal_scope": "Current and ongoing until public safety addressed",
"compliance_status": "pending",
"case_context": "Board determines it would be unprofessional for Doe to not take further action",
"source_text": "We interpret the language in the context of the facts to mean that it would now be 'unprofessional conduct' for Doe to not take further action to protect the public interest.",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.95
},
{
"identifier": "Doe_Client_Advice_Obligation",
"obligation_class": "Duty to Advise on Project Viability",
"obligated_party": "Engineer Doe",
"obligation_statement": "Advise XYZ Corporation when project will violate established standards",
"derived_from": "NSPE Code Section 1(c)",
"enforcement_context": "Ethics board review of compliance with advisory duty",
"temporal_scope": "Upon completion of engineering studies",
"compliance_status": "met",
"case_context": "Doe's verbal advice to corporation met the letter and spirit of the code",
"source_text": "His verbal advice to the corporation would seem to meet the letter and spirit of §§1 and 1(c).",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.85
},
{
"identifier": "Doe_Confidentiality_Obligation",
"obligation_class": "Client Privacy (Obligation)",
"obligated_party": "Engineer Doe",
"obligation_statement": "Not disclose confidential information concerning business affairs or technical processes without consent",
"derived_from": "NSPE Code Section 7",
"enforcement_context": "Ethics board determination that reporting does not violate confidentiality",
"temporal_scope": "Ongoing professional relationship and beyond",
"compliance_status": "met",
"case_context": "Board finds advising proper authority will not disclose technical processes or business affairs",
"source_text": "Section 7 of the code does not give us pause because the action of the engineer in advising proper authority of the apparent danger to the public interest will not in this case be disclosing",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.9
},
{
"identifier": "Engineer_General_Public_Safety_Obligation",
"obligation_class": "Duty of Care (Obligation)",
"obligated_party": "All Engineers",
"obligation_statement": "Have proper regard for safety, health, and welfare of public in professional duties",
"derived_from": "NSPE Code Section 2",
"enforcement_context": "Professional code enforcement as paramount duty",
"temporal_scope": "All professional activities",
"compliance_status": "unclear",
"case_context": "Foundational obligation underlying the entire case analysis",
"source_text": "the paramount duty of the engineer is to protect the public safety, health and welfare in a broad context",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.95
},
{
"identifier": "Engineer_Notify_Authorities_Obligation",
"obligation_class": "Duty to Report (Obligation)",
"obligated_party": "All Engineers",
"obligation_statement": "Notify proper authority of observed conditions endangering public safety and health",
"derived_from": "NSPE Code Section 2",
"enforcement_context": "Ethics board enforcement of reporting requirements",
"temporal_scope": "Upon observation of endangering conditions",
"compliance_status": "pending",
"case_context": "Doe must notify authorities of apparent danger to public interest",
"source_text": "He will notify the proper authority of any observed conditions which endanger public safety and health.",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.9
}
]
}
```
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:
Section 1 of the code is clear in providing that the engineer "will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee." In this spirit Engineer Doe has advised the XYZ Corporation that the results of his studies indicate that the established standards will in his opinion be violated. His verbal advice to the corporation would seem to meet the letter and spirit of §§1 and 1(c).
The termination of Doe’s contract with full payment for services rendered is a business decision which we will presume is permitted by the terms of the engineering services contract between Doe and his client. Doe, however, has reason to question why the corporation specifically stipulates that he not render a written report. Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare. Section 2(a) requires that his duty to the public be paramount. In this case, it is presumed that a failure to meet the minimum standards established by law is detrimental to the public health and safety.
We note that we have not heretofore during the entire existence of the board had occasion to interpret §2(c) of the code. That portion of §2(c) which requires the engineer to report any request for "unprofessional" conduct to "proper authorities" is particularly pertinent in the situation before us. The client’s action instructing Doe to not render a written report when coupled with XYZ’s testimony at the hearing raises the question of Doe’s obligation under §2(c). We interpret the language in the context of the facts to mean that it would now be "unprofessional conduct" for Doe to not take further action to protect the public interest.
It is not material, in our view, that the subject matter does not involve plans and specifications as stipulated in §2(c). We interpret "plans and specifications" in this section to include all engineering instruments of service. That particular reference must be read in light of the overall thrust of §§2 and 2(a), both of which indicate clearly that the paramount duty of the engineer is to protect the public safety, health and welfare in a broad context. As we noted in Case No. 67-10, even though involving unrelated facts and circumstances, "It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in §2 and §2(a) of the code."
Section 7 of the code does not give us pause because the action of the engineer in advising proper authority of the apparent danger to the public interest will not in this case be disclosing the technical processes or business affairs of the client.
Note: The following Code sections no longer exist:
Code of Ethics -Section 1-"The Engineer will be guided in all his professional relations by the highest standards of integrity, and will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee."
Section 1(c)-"He will advise his client or employer when he believes a project will not be successful."
Section 2-"The Engineer will have proper regard for the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance of his professional duties. If his engineering judgment is overruled by nontechnical authority, he will clearly point out the consequences. He will notify the proper authority of any observed conditions which endanger public safety and health."
Section 2(a)- "He will regard his duty to the public welfare as paramount."
Section 2(c)-"He will not complete, sign or seal plans and/or specifications that are not of a design safe to the public health and welfare and in conformity with accepted engineering standards. If the client or employer insists on such unprofessional conduct, he shall notify the proper authorities and withdraw from further service on the project."
Section 7-"The Engineer will not disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer without his consent."
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 09:23
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_constraint_classes": [
{
"label": "Confidentiality Limitation",
"definition": "Constraint that restricts disclosure of client business affairs and technical processes, but does not extend to matters affecting public safety",
"constraint_type": "procedural",
"flexibility": "soft",
"violation_impact": "Breach of professional ethics code and potential legal liability for unauthorized disclosure",
"mitigation_possible": "Constraint is mitigated when public safety concerns override confidentiality; disclosure to proper authorities permitted when public interest is at stake",
"examples_from_case": ["Section 7 does not prevent advising proper authority of apparent danger to public interest", "Will not be disclosing technical processes or business affairs when reporting safety concerns"],
"source_text": "Section 7 of the code does not give us pause because the action of the engineer in advising proper authority of the apparent danger to the public interest will not in this case be disclosing the technical processes",
"confidence": 0.85,
"reasoning": "This is distinct from existing constraints as it defines the boundary of confidentiality obligations and when they yield to public safety duties"
},
{
"label": "Written Documentation Restriction",
"definition": "Client-imposed constraint prohibiting the engineer from producing written reports or formal documentation of findings",
"constraint_type": "procedural",
"flexibility": "negotiable",
"violation_impact": "Potential breach of contract terms; however, may constitute unprofessional conduct if compliance endangers public",
"mitigation_possible": "Constraint becomes invalid when it conflicts with paramount duty to public safety; engineer may be required to disregard",
"examples_from_case": ["Corporation specifically stipulates that he not render a written report", "Client's action instructing Doe to not render a written report"],
"source_text": "Doe, however, has reason to question why the corporation specifically stipulates that he not render a written report.",
"confidence": 0.9,
"reasoning": "This represents a novel client-imposed procedural restriction that conflicts with professional duties, not covered by existing constraint classes"
},
{
"label": "Contractual Service Boundary",
"definition": "Constraint defined by the terms of the engineering services contract that limits the scope and continuation of professional engagement",
"constraint_type": "legal",
"flexibility": "hard",
"violation_impact": "Breach of contract; however, does not extinguish ongoing professional ethical obligations",
"mitigation_possible": "Contract termination does not mitigate engineer's continuing duty to public safety",
"examples_from_case": ["Termination of Doe's contract with full payment for services rendered is a business decision permitted by contract terms"],
"source_text": "The termination of Doe's contract with full payment for services rendered is a business decision which we will presume is permitted by the terms of the engineering services contract",
"confidence": 0.8,
"reasoning": "Represents legal/contractual boundaries on the professional relationship distinct from ethical constraints in existing ontology"
}
],
"constraint_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "Doe-Confidentiality-PublicSafety-Exception",
"constraint_class": "Confidentiality Limitation",
"constrained_entity": "Engineer Doe",
"constraint_statement": "Cannot disclose confidential business affairs or technical processes except when necessary to protect public safety",
"source": "Code of Ethics Section 7",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Professional ethics board review and discipline",
"temporal_scope": "Applies to all present and former client relationships",
"severity": "major",
"case_context": "Doe's disclosure to proper authorities about safety violations does not violate confidentiality because it concerns public danger, not business secrets",
"source_text": "the action of the engineer in advising proper authority of the apparent danger to the public interest will not in this case be disclosing the technical processes or business affairs",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.85
},
{
"identifier": "XYZ-NoWrittenReport-Stipulation",
"constraint_class": "Written Documentation Restriction",
"constrained_entity": "Engineer Doe",
"constraint_statement": "Prohibited from rendering a written report of study findings to XYZ Corporation",
"source": "XYZ Corporation client instruction",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Contract terms and client directive",
"temporal_scope": "Duration of and following contract termination",
"severity": "critical",
"case_context": "XYZ's stipulation against written reports, combined with testimony at hearing, raises questions about attempt to suppress evidence of standards violations",
"source_text": "the corporation specifically stipulates that he not render a written report",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.95
},
{
"identifier": "Doe-UnprofessionalConduct-Prohibition",
"constraint_class": "Scope of Practice (Constraint)",
"constrained_entity": "Engineer Doe",
"constraint_statement": "Cannot comply with client requests that constitute unprofessional conduct endangering public safety",
"source": "Code of Ethics Section 2(c)",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Professional ethics board; requirement to report to proper authorities",
"temporal_scope": "Ongoing professional obligation",
"severity": "critical",
"case_context": "Doe's failure to take further action to protect public interest would itself constitute unprofessional conduct",
"source_text": "We interpret the language in the context of the facts to mean that it would now be 'unprofessional conduct' for Doe to not take further action to protect the public interest.",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.9
},
{
"identifier": "Doe-UnsafePlans-Prohibition",
"constraint_class": "Scope of Practice (Constraint)",
"constrained_entity": "Engineer Doe",
"constraint_statement": "Cannot complete, sign, or seal plans and specifications that are unsafe to public health and welfare or not in conformity with accepted engineering standards",
"source": "Code of Ethics Section 2(c)",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Professional ethics board; withdrawal from project required",
"temporal_scope": "All professional engagements",
"severity": "critical",
"case_context": "Interpreted broadly to include all engineering instruments of service, not just formal plans and specifications",
"source_text": "We interpret 'plans and specifications' in this section to include all engineering instruments of service.",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.85
},
{
"identifier": "Doe-Contract-Termination-Boundary",
"constraint_class": "Contractual Service Boundary",
"constrained_entity": "Engineer Doe",
"constraint_statement": "Contract with XYZ Corporation terminated; formal professional relationship ended",
"source": "Engineering services contract between Doe and XYZ",
"enforcement_mechanism": "Contract law",
"temporal_scope": "Effective upon termination with full payment",
"severity": "major",
"case_context": "Contract termination does not relieve Doe of ethical obligations to public safety that arose during engagement",
"source_text": "The termination of Doe's contract with full payment for services rendered is a business decision which we will presume is permitted by the terms of the engineering services contract",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.8
}
]
}
```
Capabilities Extraction
LLM Prompt
You are an expert in professional ethics analyzing a case for capabilities (competencies and skills required for professional practice).
Based on the literature:
- Capabilities are COMPETENCIES that enable norm compliance (Hallamaa & Kalliokoski 2022)
- They represent the skills needed to fulfill professional obligations (Dennis et al. 2016)
- Capabilities include technical, ethical, communicative, and analytical competencies
- They constitute "norm competence" - the ability to act ethically (Kong et al. 2020)
Your task is to:
1. Identify NEW CAPABILITY CLASSES not in the existing ontology
2. Extract SPECIFIC CAPABILITY INDIVIDUALS from the case
Analyze this discussion section:
Section 1 of the code is clear in providing that the engineer "will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee." In this spirit Engineer Doe has advised the XYZ Corporation that the results of his studies indicate that the established standards will in his opinion be violated. His verbal advice to the corporation would seem to meet the letter and spirit of §§1 and 1(c).
The termination of Doe’s contract with full payment for services rendered is a business decision which we will presume is permitted by the terms of the engineering services contract between Doe and his client. Doe, however, has reason to question why the corporation specifically stipulates that he not render a written report. Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare. Section 2(a) requires that his duty to the public be paramount. In this case, it is presumed that a failure to meet the minimum standards established by law is detrimental to the public health and safety.
We note that we have not heretofore during the entire existence of the board had occasion to interpret §2(c) of the code. That portion of §2(c) which requires the engineer to report any request for "unprofessional" conduct to "proper authorities" is particularly pertinent in the situation before us. The client’s action instructing Doe to not render a written report when coupled with XYZ’s testimony at the hearing raises the question of Doe’s obligation under §2(c). We interpret the language in the context of the facts to mean that it would now be "unprofessional conduct" for Doe to not take further action to protect the public interest.
It is not material, in our view, that the subject matter does not involve plans and specifications as stipulated in §2(c). We interpret "plans and specifications" in this section to include all engineering instruments of service. That particular reference must be read in light of the overall thrust of §§2 and 2(a), both of which indicate clearly that the paramount duty of the engineer is to protect the public safety, health and welfare in a broad context. As we noted in Case No. 67-10, even though involving unrelated facts and circumstances, "It is basic to the entire concept of a profession that its members will devote their interests to the public welfare, as is made abundantly clear in §2 and §2(a) of the code."
Section 7 of the code does not give us pause because the action of the engineer in advising proper authority of the apparent danger to the public interest will not in this case be disclosing the technical processes or business affairs of the client.
Note: The following Code sections no longer exist:
Code of Ethics -Section 1-"The Engineer will be guided in all his professional relations by the highest standards of integrity, and will act in professional matters for each client or employer as a faithful agent or trustee."
Section 1(c)-"He will advise his client or employer when he believes a project will not be successful."
Section 2-"The Engineer will have proper regard for the safety, health, and welfare of the public in the performance of his professional duties. If his engineering judgment is overruled by nontechnical authority, he will clearly point out the consequences. He will notify the proper authority of any observed conditions which endanger public safety and health."
Section 2(a)- "He will regard his duty to the public welfare as paramount."
Section 2(c)-"He will not complete, sign or seal plans and/or specifications that are not of a design safe to the public health and welfare and in conformity with accepted engineering standards. If the client or employer insists on such unprofessional conduct, he shall notify the proper authorities and withdraw from further service on the project."
Section 7-"The Engineer will not disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer without his consent."
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 09:23
LLM Response
```json
{
"new_capability_classes": [
{
"label": "Professional Reporting Judgment",
"definition": "The competency to determine when, how, and in what format professional findings should be documented and communicated, including the ability to recognize when requests to alter reporting practices may constitute unprofessional conduct",
"capability_type": "ethical",
"norm_competence_related": "Enables compliance with obligations to provide complete professional services and recognize attempts to suppress professional findings",
"skill_level": "advanced",
"acquisition_method": "Professional experience, ethics training, mentorship in professional practice",
"examples_from_case": ["Recognizing that stipulation against written report is suspicious", "Understanding implications of verbal-only advice versus documented findings"],
"source_text": "Doe, however, has reason to question why the corporation specifically stipulates that he not render a written report.",
"confidence": 0.85,
"reasoning": "This represents a specific meta-competency about professional documentation practices and recognizing manipulation of reporting requirements, distinct from general communication skills"
},
{
"label": "Unprofessional Conduct Recognition",
"definition": "The ability to identify when client or employer requests constitute unprofessional conduct that requires reporting to proper authorities, including recognizing subtle forms of pressure to compromise professional standards",
"capability_type": "ethical",
"norm_competence_related": "Enables compliance with Section 2(c) obligations to report unprofessional conduct requests to proper authorities",
"skill_level": "advanced",
"acquisition_method": "Ethics education, case study analysis, professional experience with ethical dilemmas",
"examples_from_case": ["Identifying that suppression of written report combined with hearing testimony constitutes unprofessional conduct request"],
"source_text": "We interpret the language in the context of the facts to mean that it would now be 'unprofessional conduct' for Doe to not take further action",
"confidence": 0.90,
"reasoning": "This is a distinct analytical-ethical competency for pattern recognition of unprofessional conduct that goes beyond general ethical awareness"
},
{
"label": "Code Interpretation Competence",
"definition": "The ability to interpret professional codes of ethics in context, understanding how specific provisions apply to novel situations and how narrow provisions should be read in light of broader professional principles",
"capability_type": "analytical",
"norm_competence_related": "Enables proper application of professional codes to complex situations where literal interpretation may be insufficient",
"skill_level": "expert",
"acquisition_method": "Legal and ethics education, study of precedent cases, professional board experience",
"examples_from_case": ["Interpreting 'plans and specifications' to include all engineering instruments of service", "Reading specific provisions in light of overall code thrust"],
"source_text": "We interpret 'plans and specifications' in this section to include all engineering instruments of service.",
"confidence": 0.88,
"reasoning": "This represents a specialized hermeneutical competency for professional code application distinct from general ethical reasoning"
},
{
"label": "Confidentiality Boundary Assessment",
"definition": "The competency to distinguish between protected confidential information and information that must be disclosed in the public interest, enabling appropriate disclosure without violating confidentiality obligations",
"capability_type": "ethical",
"norm_competence_related": "Enables balancing of confidentiality obligations (Section 7) with public safety duties (Section 2)",
"skill_level": "advanced",
"acquisition_method": "Ethics training, legal education on professional privilege, case study analysis",
"examples_from_case": ["Determining that reporting danger does not disclose technical processes or business affairs"],
"source_text": "Section 7 of the code does not give us pause because the action of the engineer in advising proper authority...will not be disclosing the technical processes",
"confidence": 0.87,
"reasoning": "This is a specific competency for navigating the intersection of confidentiality and disclosure obligations, distinct from general confidentiality awareness"
}
],
"capability_individuals": [
{
"identifier": "Doe_Faithful_Agent_Advisory",
"capability_class": "Professional Advisory Competence",
"possessed_by": "Engineer Doe",
"capability_statement": "Ability to advise clients on technical findings and potential regulatory violations",
"demonstrated_through": "Verbal advice to XYZ Corporation about standards violations",
"proficiency_level": "advanced",
"enables_obligations": "Faithful agent/trustee duty under Section 1, advisory duty under Section 1(c)",
"temporal_aspect": "During professional engagement with client",
"case_context": "Doe advised XYZ Corporation that study results indicated established standards would be violated",
"source_text": "Engineer Doe has advised the XYZ Corporation that the results of his studies indicate that the established standards will in his opinion be violated",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.92
},
{
"identifier": "Doe_Standards_Assessment",
"capability_class": "Technical Standards Evaluation",
"possessed_by": "Engineer Doe",
"capability_statement": "Ability to conduct studies and evaluate compliance with established regulatory standards",
"demonstrated_through": "Completion of studies identifying standards violations",
"proficiency_level": "expert",
"enables_obligations": "Technical competence obligations, public safety assessment duties",
"temporal_aspect": "During engineering study phase",
"case_context": "Doe conducted studies that revealed potential violations of minimum standards established by law",
"source_text": "the results of his studies indicate that the established standards will in his opinion be violated",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.90
},
{
"identifier": "Doe_Public_Safety_Recognition",
"capability_class": "Public Safety Impact Assessment",
"possessed_by": "Engineer Doe",
"capability_statement": "Ability to recognize when engineering findings have implications for public health and safety",
"demonstrated_through": "Understanding that standards violations are detrimental to public health",
"proficiency_level": "advanced",
"enables_obligations": "Paramount duty to public welfare under Section 2(a)",
"temporal_aspect": "Upon learning of public hearing",
"case_context": "Doe confronted with obligations to public concerning safety, health, and welfare upon learning of hearing",
"source_text": "Upon learning of the hearing, he is squarely confronted with his obligations to the public concerning its safety, health, and welfare",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.88
},
{
"identifier": "Doe_Unprofessional_Conduct_Recognition",
"capability_class": "Unprofessional Conduct Recognition",
"possessed_by": "Engineer Doe",
"capability_statement": "Ability to recognize that client's instruction to withhold written report constitutes request for unprofessional conduct",
"demonstrated_through": "Questioning why corporation stipulated no written report",
"proficiency_level": "advanced",
"enables_obligations": "Reporting obligation under Section 2(c)",
"temporal_aspect": "Upon receiving client instruction and learning of hearing",
"case_context": "Client's action instructing no written report coupled with hearing testimony raises Section 2(c) obligations",
"source_text": "The client's action instructing Doe to not render a written report when coupled with XYZ's testimony at the hearing raises the question of Doe's obligation",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.85
},
{
"identifier": "Board_Code_Interpretation",
"capability_class": "Code Interpretation Competence",
"possessed_by": "Board of Ethical Review",
"capability_statement": "Ability to interpret code provisions contextually and extend narrow provisions to cover analogous situations",
"demonstrated_through": "First-time interpretation of Section 2(c) and extension of 'plans and specifications' meaning",
"proficiency_level": "expert",
"enables_obligations": "Authoritative guidance on professional obligations",
"temporal_aspect": "During case review and opinion issuance",
"case_context": "Board interprets Section 2(c) for first time, extends 'plans and specifications' to all instruments of service",
"source_text": "We note that we have not heretofore during the entire existence of the board had occasion to interpret §2(c) of the code",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.92
},
{
"identifier": "Doe_Confidentiality_Boundary_Assessment",
"capability_class": "Confidentiality Boundary Assessment",
"possessed_by": "Engineer Doe",
"capability_statement": "Ability to determine that reporting public danger does not violate confidentiality obligations",
"demonstrated_through": "Understanding that advising authorities does not disclose technical processes or business affairs",
"proficiency_level": "advanced",
"enables_obligations": "Balancing Section 7 confidentiality with Section 2 public safety duties",
"temporal_aspect": "When deciding whether to report to authorities",
"case_context": "Reporting danger to proper authority will not disclose confidential technical or business information",
"source_text": "the action of the engineer in advising proper authority of the apparent danger to the public interest will not...be disclosing the technical processes",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.86
},
{
"identifier": "Doe_Professional_Reporting_Judgment",
"capability_class": "Professional Reporting Judgment",
"possessed_by": "Engineer Doe",
"capability_statement": "Ability to recognize suspicious nature of client's request to suppress written documentation",
"demonstrated_through": "Questioning the stipulation against written report",
"proficiency_level": "advanced",
"enables_obligations": "Complete professional service delivery, recognition of unprofessional conduct requests",
"temporal_aspect": "Upon contract termination with reporting restriction",
"case_context": "Doe has reason to question why corporation specifically stipulates no written report",
"source_text": "Doe, however, has reason to question why the corporation specifically stipulates that he not render a written report",
"is_existing_class": false,
"confidence": 0.84
},
{
"identifier": "Doe_Proper_Authority_Notification",
"capability_class": "Regulatory Communication Competence",
"possessed_by": "Engineer Doe",
"capability_statement": "Ability to identify and communicate with proper authorities regarding public safety concerns",
"demonstrated_through": "Obligation to notify proper authorities of observed conditions endangering public safety",
"proficiency_level": "intermediate",
"enables_obligations": "Section 2 duty to notify proper authority of conditions endangering public safety",
"temporal_aspect": "After identifying public safety concern",
"case_context": "Engineer required to advise proper authority of apparent danger to public interest",
"source_text": "the action of the engineer in advising proper authority of the apparent danger to the public interest",
"is_existing_class": true,
"confidence": 0.88
}
]
}
```