Step 2: Normative Requirements Pass (Discussion)

DUAL PRINCIPLE EXTRACTION - Ethical Principles Analysis THEORETICAL CONTEXT (Chapter 2.2.2): - Principles are ABSTRACT ethical foundations requiring extensional definition through cases - They function like constitutional principles - open-textured and requiring interpretation - Principles mediate moral ideals into concrete reality through context-specific application - They cannot be applied deductively but require balancing and interpretation EXISTING PRINCIPLE CLASSES IN ONTOLOGY: - Competence Principle: Balances professional autonomy with recognition of limitations and need for collaboration. - Confidentiality Principle: Must be balanced against public safety obligations and legal disclosure requirements. - Domain-Specific Principle: Examples: Environmental Stewardship (engineering), Patient Autonomy (medicine), Academic Freedom (education). These address domain-specific ethical ch - Environmental Stewardship Principle: Bridges engineering practice with broader environmental and societal responsibilities. - Ethical Principle: Legacy synonym for Principle. Use :Principle for new concepts. - Fundamental Ethical Principle: Examples: Public Welfare Paramount, Respect for Persons, Justice, Beneficence. These require extensive interpretation and balancing in specific contex - Integrity Principle: Central to professional identity formation and trust maintenance in professional relationships. - Principle: An information content entity representing ethical values and guidelines for conduct. This is the P component of the formal specification D=(R,P,O,S,R - Principle Argument: An argument based on fundamental ethical principles or values. - Principle Refinement: Capability to evolve principles as inconsistencies are resolved and new cases are added (GenEth system, Anderson & Anderson 2018) - Professional Virtue Principle: Examples: Integrity, Competence, Honesty, Professional Courage, Accountability. These shape professional character and decision-making. - Public Welfare Principle: Requires contextual interpretation to balance against client confidentiality and employer loyalty when public safety is at risk. - Relational Principle: Examples: Confidentiality, Loyalty, Fairness, Transparency, Respect for Autonomy. These govern interpersonal professional dynamics. - Transparency Principle: Essential for maintaining trust and enabling stakeholder participation in professional decisions. === TASK === From the following case text (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: {'title': 'Facts', 'html': 'Engineer A, an environmental engineer with several years of experience and holding a professional engineering license, was retained by Client W to prepare a comprehensive report addressing the manufacture, use, and characteristics of an organic compound identified as an emerging contaminant of concern. This work required Engineer A to perform an analysis of groundwater monitoring data from a site Engineer A had been observing for over a year. In addition, Engineer A was tasked to develop engineering design documents (plans and specifications) for modifications to groundwater infrastructure at the same site.Engineer A is known for their strong technical expertise but is, personally, less confident in their technical writing. Previously, Engineer A had relied on guidance and quality assurance reviews by their mentor and supervisor, Engineer B, to refine report drafts. But Engineer B recently retired and was no longer available to Engineer A in a work capacity.Faced with the need to deliver both the report and the engineering design documents without the review by and mentorship from Engineer B, Engineer A opted to use open-sourced artificial intelligence (AI) software to create an initial draft of the necessary report and to use AI-assisted drafting tools to generate preliminary design documents. The AI drafting software was new to the market and Engineer A had no previous experience with the tool. The AI drafting software was also open-sourced.For the report, Engineer A gathered the relevant information provided by Client W and relied on the AI software to synthesize the information and generate an initial draft of the necessary report. Engineer A input the information gathered from Client W into the AI software, and, after a few refining prompts, received a first draft of the report generated by the AI software.Not being familiar with the full functionality of the AI software, including the accuracy and originality of AI-generated text, Engineer A conducted a thorough review of the report, cross-checking key facts against professional journal articles and verifying the phrasing by running search engine queries to ensure the content did not match any existing language. Engineer A also made minor adjustments to some of the wording to personalize the content. Engineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models, and submitted the draft report to Client W for review, including language to clearly identify that the supplied report was a draft, but applied their seal consistent with state law.For the engineering design documents, Engineer A entered the information gathered from Client W into the AI software and relied on the AI-assisted drafting tools to generate a preliminary design of the plans, including basic layouts and technical specifications. Engineer A completed a cursory review of the AI-generated plans and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions. Again, Engineer A did not cite the AI-assisted drafting tools they used to generate the engineering design documents.When Client W reviewed the draft report, Client W noted that the section analyzing the groundwater monitoring data would benefit from minor edits for grammar and clarity, but found the introduction discussing the contaminant’s manufacture, use, and characteristics to be exceptionally polished. The Client commented that the report read as if written by two different authors but was otherwise satisfactory. Client W, however, noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions and an omission of key safety features required by local regulations. Client W raised concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the engineering design and instructed Engineer A to revise the plans, ensuring that all elements satisfied the necessary professional and regulatory standards.', 'raw_key': 'facts', 'llm_text': 'Facts:\nEngineer A, an environmental engineer with several years of experience and holding a professional engineering license, was retained by Client W to prepare a comprehensive report addressing the manufacture, use, and characteristics of an organic compound identified as an emerging contaminant of concern.\nThis work required Engineer A to perform an analysis of groundwater monitoring data from a site Engineer A had been observing for over a year.\nIn addition, Engineer A was tasked to develop engineering design documents (plans and specifications) for modifications to groundwater infrastructure at the same site.\nEngineer A is known for their strong technical expertise but is, personally, less confident in their technical writing.\nPreviously, Engineer A had relied on guidance and quality assurance reviews by their mentor and supervisor, Engineer B, to refine report drafts.\nBut Engineer B recently retired and was no longer available to Engineer A in a work capacity.\nFaced with the need to deliver both the report and the engineering design documents without the review by and mentorship from Engineer B, Engineer A opted to use open-sourced artificial intelligence (AI) software to create an initial draft of the necessary report and to use AI-assisted drafting tools to generate preliminary design documents.\nThe AI drafting software was new to the market and Engineer A had no previous experience with the tool.\nThe AI drafting software was also open-sourced.\nFor the report, Engineer A gathered the relevant information provided by Client W and relied on the AI software to synthesize the information and generate an initial draft of the necessary report.\nEngineer A input the information gathered from Client W into the AI software, and, after a few refining prompts, received a first draft of the report generated by the AI software.\nNot being familiar with the full functionality of the AI software, including the accuracy and originality of AI-generated text, Engineer A conducted a thorough review of the report, cross-checking key facts against professional journal articles and verifying the phrasing by running search engine queries to ensure the content did not match any existing language.\nEngineer A also made minor adjustments to some of the wording to personalize the content.\nEngineer A did not cite their use of AI-software or its large language models, and submitted the draft report to Client W for review, including language to clearly identify that the supplied report was a draft, but applied their seal consistent with state law.\nFor the engineering design documents, Engineer A entered the information gathered from Client W into the AI software and relied on the AI-assisted drafting tools to generate a preliminary design of the plans, including basic layouts and technical specifications.\nEngineer A completed a cursory review of the AI-generated plans and adjusted certain elements to align with site-specific conditions.\nAgain, Engineer A did not cite the AI-assisted drafting tools they used to generate the engineering design documents.\nWhen Client W reviewed the draft report, Client W noted that the section analyzing the groundwater monitoring data would benefit from minor edits for grammar and clarity, but found the introduction discussing the contaminant’s manufacture, use, and characteristics to be exceptionally polished.\nThe Client commented that the report read as if written by two different authors but was otherwise satisfactory.\nClient W, however, noticed several issues with the AI-generated design documents, including misaligned dimensions and an omission of key safety features required by local regulations.\nClient W raised concerns about the accuracy and reliability of the engineering design and instructed Engineer A to revise the plans, ensuring that all elements satisfied the necessary professional and regulatory 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"] } ], "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", "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" } ] }