Technology Substitution Prohibition Principle
Class
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#TechnologySubstitutionProhibitionPrinciple
Class Hierarchy
- Thing
- ↳ entity (bfo)
- ↳ continuant (bfo)
- ↳ generically dependent continuant (bfo)
- ↳ information content entity (iao)
- ↳ directive information entity (iao)
- ↳ Principle (proethica-core)
- ↳ Fundamental Ethical Principle (proethica-intermediate)
- ↳ TechnologySubstitutionProhibitionPrinciple
Definition
Fundamental professional principle prohibiting engineers from using technological tools, including AI-assisted drafting or automated design systems, as a substitute for independent engineering judgment, requiring instead that such tools serve only as aids subject to substantive professional evaluation and oversight.
Case Provenance
Discovered in
This class was discovered during extraction of the case(s) above; the supporting verbatim quotes are in Source Evidence.
Properties
Abstract Nature
Requires ongoing interpretation of the boundary between legitimate tool use and impermissible substitution of tool output for professional judgment, particularly as tool capabilities evolve.
Confidence
0.9
Derived Obligations
Conduct comprehensive rather than high-level review of AI-generated technical work
Critically evaluate and challenge AI-generated outputs rather than accepting them
Define problem constraints and guidelines before delegating to AI tools
Verify that AI outputs meet independent professional standards before incorporation
Extensional Examples
BER Case 90-6 warning that CADD used beyond its ability has a propensity to be used as a crutch or substitute for judgment
BER Case 98-3 conclusion that technology must not replace or be used as a substitute for engineering judgment
Engineer A conducting only a high-level review of AI-generated design documents rather than substantive independent evaluation
Operationalization
Requires engineers to outline solution guidelines and constraints before using AI tools, to critically evaluate and challenge tool outputs, to understand the reasoning behind outputs, and to accept only those outputs that satisfy independent professional standards.
Potential Conflicts
Professional Competence (efficient use of available tools)
Responsible Charge Integrity Principle
Principle Category
fundamental_ethical
Value Basis
Engineering judgment is the core professional contribution that licenses and professional obligations protect; allowing tools to replace rather than assist that judgment undermines the entire basis for professional licensure and public trust.
Property Structure
1 · Object and Data Properties
rdfs:domain on this class or ancestor
| Property | Range | Description |
|---|---|---|
| establishedBy inherited | CodeProvision | Indicates which code provision establishes this ethical concept. |
| invokedBy inherited | Agent | Relates a Principle to the Agent(s) that invoke it in the case scenario (the parties who appeal to the principle to justify or evaluate conduct). May name several agents. |
2 · Definitional Attributes
SHACL definitional shape
| Attribute | Property (sh:path) | Description |
|---|---|---|
| principle kind | principleCategory | The controlled principle kind, which drives the four-kind subClassOf typing: FundamentalEthicalPrinciple, ProfessionalVirtuePrinciple, RelationalPrinciple, DomainSpecificPrinciple. The canonical leaf label becomes the rdf:type; the category is a routing input, not stored as a literal. |
| extensional cases | extensionalCases | Class-level prior cases that instantiate the principle (McLaren extensional grounding); an optional class-mint field. |
3 · Bearer Attributes
SHACL property shape
individual data
| Attribute | Property (sh:path) | Description |
|---|---|---|
| interpretation | interpretation | Per-case reading of what the principle requires in this situation (a defeasibility-pipeline source field). |
| concrete expression | concreteExpression | How the principle is concretely expressed in the case (a defeasibility-pipeline source field). |
| applied to | appliedTo | What the principle is applied to in the case (the situation or party it bears on). |
| balancing with | balancingWith | The competing principle or value this principle is balanced against in the case, recorded as a literal; extraction records the tension but asserts no defeat or precedence, and the defeasibility edges are materialized by a separate pass from this field. |
| tension resolution | tensionResolution | How the case resolves the tension involving this principle (a defeasibility-pipeline source field). |
| invoked by | invokedBy | The agent who invokes the principle, via the P->Agent invokedBy edge (resolved to a case Agent by embedding shortlist + LLM select; a Board-pattern invoking party resolves deterministically to the case-scoped NSPE Board of Ethical Review Agent). Range: Agent. |
4 · Referenced By
rdfs:range on this class or ancestor
| From | Property | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Action | guidedByPrinciple inherited | Relates an action to a principle that directs it. The principle supplies the value the action is taken to serve. |
| Code Provision | establishes inherited | Relates a code provision to the ethical concepts (principles, obligations, constraints) it establishes or defines. |
| Obligation | derivedFromPrinciple inherited | Relates an obligation to the principle or principles it operationalizes. The obligation gives concrete directive force to the more abstract value the principle expresses (Dennis et al. 2016). |
| Role | adheresToPrinciple inherited | Relates a role to principles that guide its conduct; the role-relative applicability edge of the R->P->O chain (the role determines which principles apply to conduct in that standing). |
Source Evidence
Text references
As night follows day one can be assured that CADD utilized beyond its ability to serve as a valuable tool has a propensity to be utilized as a crutch or substitute for judgement.
By relying on AI-assisted tools without a comprehensive verification process of its output, Engineer A risked violating this requirement.
It is the [BER]'s position that technology has an important place in the practice of engineering, but it must never be a replacement of a substitute for engineering judgement.
Much like directing an engineering intern to solve a problem, responsible use of AI requires an engineer to outline solution guidelines and constraints. Recommendations from the program or intern should not be blindly accepted, they should be considered and challenged and the resulting outputs should be understood.
Source text
It is the [BER]'s position that technology has an important place in the practice of engineering, but it must never be a replacement of a substitute for engineering judgement.
Used in cases 1
Case ontologies that instantiate this class or one of its base-ontology descendants. Computed from each individual's type, so the list stays current as cases are extracted. The originating case is shown under Extraction details.
Case 120@prefix core: <http://proethica.org/ontology/core#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix pcsh: <http://proethica.org/shapes/core#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix proeth-prov: <http://proethica.org/provenance#> .
@prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix sh: <http://www.w3.org/ns/shacl#> .
@prefix skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
proeth:TechnologySubstitutionProhibitionPrinciple a owl:Class ;
rdfs:label "Technology Substitution Prohibition Principle" ;
proeth:abstractNature "Requires ongoing interpretation of the boundary between legitimate tool use and impermissible substitution of tool output for professional judgment, particularly as tool capabilities evolve." ;
proeth:confidence "0.9" ;
proeth:derivedObligations "Conduct comprehensive rather than high-level review of AI-generated technical work",
"Critically evaluate and challenge AI-generated outputs rather than accepting them",
"Define problem constraints and guidelines before delegating to AI tools",
"Verify that AI outputs meet independent professional standards before incorporation" ;
proeth:extensionalExamples "BER Case 90-6 warning that CADD used beyond its ability has a propensity to be used as a crutch or substitute for judgment",
"BER Case 98-3 conclusion that technology must not replace or be used as a substitute for engineering judgment",
"Engineer A conducting only a high-level review of AI-generated design documents rather than substantive independent evaluation" ;
proeth:operationalization "Requires engineers to outline solution guidelines and constraints before using AI tools, to critically evaluate and challenge tool outputs, to understand the reasoning behind outputs, and to accept only those outputs that satisfy independent professional standards." ;
proeth:potentialConflicts "Professional Competence (efficient use of available tools)",
"Responsible Charge Integrity Principle" ;
proeth:principleCategory "fundamental_ethical" ;
proeth:textReferences "As night follows day one can be assured that CADD utilized beyond its ability to serve as a valuable tool has a propensity to be utilized as a crutch or substitute for judgement.",
"By relying on AI-assisted tools without a comprehensive verification process of its output, Engineer A risked violating this requirement.",
"It is the [BER]'s position that technology has an important place in the practice of engineering, but it must never be a replacement of a substitute for engineering judgement.",
"Much like directing an engineering intern to solve a problem, responsible use of AI requires an engineer to outline solution guidelines and constraints. Recommendations from the program or intern should not be blindly accepted, they should be considered and challenged and the resulting outputs should be understood." ;
proeth:valueBasis "Engineering judgment is the core professional contribution that licenses and professional obligations protect; allowing tools to replace rather than assist that judgment undermines the entire basis for professional licensure and public trust." ;
proeth-prov:discoveredInCase 7,
120 ;
proeth-prov:discoveredInPass 2 ;
proeth-prov:discoveredInSection "discussion" ;
proeth-prov:firstDiscoveredAt "2026-06-03T14:08:23.434917+00:00"^^xsd:dateTime ;
proeth-prov:firstDiscoveredInCase 7 ;
proeth-prov:matchConfidence 0.0 ;
proeth-prov:matchesExisting false ;
proeth-prov:sourceText "It is the [BER]'s position that technology has an important place in the practice of engineering, but it must never be a replacement of a substitute for engineering judgement." ;
rdfs:comment "Fundamental professional principle prohibiting engineers from using technological tools, including AI-assisted drafting or automated design systems, as a substitute for independent engineering judgment, requiring instead that such tools serve only as aids subject to substantive professional evaluation and oversight." ;
rdfs:subClassOf proeth:FundamentalEthicalPrinciple ;
skos:definition "Fundamental professional principle prohibiting engineers from using technological tools, including AI-assisted drafting or automated design systems, as a substitute for independent engineering judgment, requiring instead that such tools serve only as aids subject to substantive professional evaluation and oversight." ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-06-03T14:08:23.434917+00:00"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasAttributedTo "Case 7 Extraction",
"claude-sonnet-4-6" .
pcsh:CaseAnnotationShape a sh:NodeShape ;
rdfs:label "Shared per-case annotation schema (all nine components)"@en ;
rdfs:comment "The cross-component annotation fields on committed case individuals: proeth:confidence (extraction confidence, decimal; all components except Action, whose Step-3 contract carries no confidence field), proeth:textReferences (verbatim supporting quotes, universal), proeth-prov sourceText (the source snippet, on the Step-1/2 provenance layers; Step-3 A/E individuals ground via textReferences only), and the involvement gloss (proeth:caseInvolvement on role individuals, proeth:caseContext on obligation, capability, and constraint individuals). Values are per-individual; the fields do not individuate any type."@en ;
sh:property [ sh:description "Extraction confidence for this individual (0 to 1)." ;
sh:name "confidence" ;
sh:order 1 ;
sh:path proeth:confidence ],
[ sh:description "Verbatim case quotes supporting this individual." ;
sh:name "text references" ;
sh:order 2 ;
sh:path proeth:textReferences ],
[ sh:description "How this individual figures in the case narrative (role individuals; the same text is routed into rdfs:comment)." ;
sh:name "case involvement" ;
sh:order 3 ;
sh:path proeth:caseInvolvement ],
[ sh:description "Grounding context in this case (obligation, capability, and constraint individuals)." ;
sh:name "case context" ;
sh:order 4 ;
sh:path proeth:caseContext ] ;
sh:targetClass core:Action,
core:Capability,
core:Constraint,
core:Event,
core:Obligation,
core:Principle,
core:Resource,
core:Role,
core:State .
pcsh:PrincipleDefinitionShape a sh:NodeShape ;
rdfs:label "Principle definition schema (type-level, descriptive, field contract)"@en ;
rdfs:comment "What individuates a principle TYPE: its canonical kind (drives the four-kind subClassOf typing; the canonical leaf becomes the rdf:type) and the extensional cases that ground it (McLaren). The five per-case narrative literals and the invokedBy edge are per-individual and now declared on PrinciplePropertyShape, mirroring the RoleDefinitionShape/ProfessionalRolePropertyShape split so the {{ principle_schema }} prompt separates the type judgment from what the case supplies. Descriptive only (no validation result); principle_category is a routing input, not stored as a literal."@en ;
sh:property [ sh:description "The controlled principle kind, which drives the four-kind subClassOf typing: FundamentalEthicalPrinciple, ProfessionalVirtuePrinciple, RelationalPrinciple, DomainSpecificPrinciple. The canonical leaf label becomes the rdf:type; the category is a routing input, not stored as a literal." ;
sh:name "principle kind" ;
sh:order 1 ;
sh:path proeth:principleCategory ],
[ sh:description "Class-level prior cases that instantiate the principle (McLaren extensional grounding); an optional class-mint field." ;
sh:name "extensional cases" ;
sh:order 2 ;
sh:path proeth:extensionalCases ] ;
sh:targetClass core:Principle .
pcsh:PrinciplePropertyShape a sh:NodeShape ;
rdfs:label "Principle per-case schema (individual data, non-definitional)"@en ;
rdfs:comment "What a principle INDIVIDUAL is described by in a specific case: the five narrative literals the defeasibility pipeline consumes and the agent that invokes it. These do NOT individuate the principle TYPE (that is PrincipleDefinitionShape); their values are per-case, asserted on the individual. Descriptive only."@en ;
sh:property [ sh:description "Per-case reading of what the principle requires in this situation (a defeasibility-pipeline source field)." ;
sh:name "interpretation" ;
sh:order 1 ;
sh:path proeth:interpretation ],
[ sh:description "How the principle is concretely expressed in the case (a defeasibility-pipeline source field)." ;
sh:name "concrete expression" ;
sh:order 2 ;
sh:path proeth:concreteExpression ],
[ sh:description "What the principle is applied to in the case (the situation or party it bears on)." ;
sh:name "applied to" ;
sh:order 3 ;
sh:path proeth:appliedTo ],
[ sh:description "The competing principle or value this principle is balanced against in the case, recorded as a literal; extraction records the tension but asserts no defeat or precedence, and the defeasibility edges are materialized by a separate pass from this field." ;
sh:name "balancing with" ;
sh:order 4 ;
sh:path proeth:balancingWith ],
[ sh:description "How the case resolves the tension involving this principle (a defeasibility-pipeline source field)." ;
sh:name "tension resolution" ;
sh:order 5 ;
sh:path proeth:tensionResolution ],
[ sh:description "The agent who invokes the principle, via the P->Agent invokedBy edge (resolved to a case Agent by embedding shortlist + LLM select; a Board-pattern invoking party resolves deterministically to the case-scoped NSPE Board of Ethical Review Agent). Range: Agent." ;
sh:name "invoked by" ;
sh:order 6 ;
sh:path core:invokedBy ] ;
sh:targetClass core:Principle .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
['7', '120']
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-06-03T14:08:23.434917+00:00
First case
7
Match Confidence
0.0
Matches Existing
false
Generated
2026-06-03T14:08:23.434917+00:00
Attributed to
['Case 7 Extraction', 'claude-sonnet-4-6']