[
  {
    "id": "N1",
    "domain": "POLICING",
    "ethical_tension": "Equity vs. Cost/Efficiency in Remediation",
    "prompt": "An audit reveals that the police department's new facial recognition system is 30% less accurate for Black women and 20% less accurate for elderly Indigenous men. The vendor offers a patch that requires doubling the training data and retraining the model, costing an additional $5 million and delaying deployment by a year. The city council, facing budget cuts, argues this cost is prohibitive and wants to deploy the flawed system with a disclaimer. Do you deploy the biased system, or refuse and leave the police with no facial recognition at all (which they argue would compromise existing investigations)?"
  },
  {
    "id": "N2",
    "domain": "CRITICAL_INFRASTRUCTURE",
    "ethical_tension": "Right to Repair/Autonomy vs. System Security/Vendor Liability",
    "prompt": "A remote Indigenous community relies on a bespoke solar-powered water purification system. The manufacturer, based in Germany, maintains a 'digital lock' on the software, requiring their certified technicians (who take weeks to arrive) for any repair. A critical part malfunctions, threatening the community's drinking water. A local tech worker, trained in similar systems, can 'jailbreak' the device and fix it immediately, but it violates the manufacturer's warranty and security protocols, potentially exposing the system to future cyber-attacks. Do you authorize the local hack to save the water supply now, or wait for the 'authorized' repair, risking a health crisis?"
  },
  {
    "id": "N3",
    "domain": "DIGITAL_IDENTITY",
    "ethical_tension": "Empowerment/Access vs. Surveillance/Data Weaponization",
    "prompt": "A local government proposes a 'Digital Identity Wallet' for Indigenous youth in a remote community, allowing them to access services and culturally appropriate content in their own language. However, the system also uses biometric authentication and creates a verifiable, immutable digital trail of all accessed services and locations. Youth leaders fear this data could be accessed by police or welfare authorities, turning a tool of empowerment into one of increased surveillance. Do you advocate for the system for its benefits, or reject it entirely to prevent its potential weaponization?"
  },
  {
    "id": "N4",
    "domain": "POLICING",
    "ethical_tension": "Transparency/Justice vs. Proprietary Secrecy/Efficiency",
    "prompt": "An investigation reveals that a proprietary bail risk assessment algorithm, used in a major US city, consistently flags defendants from a specific low-income, predominantly Black district as higher flight risks, even with identical criminal histories. The software vendor claims the algorithm is 'too complex' to be fully audited without revealing trade secrets and offers only minor parameter adjustments. Judges rely on this tool due to caseload. Do you mandate the suspension of the algorithm, leading to increased pre-trial detention rates due to overwhelmed manual systems, or continue its use with minor tweaks, perpetuating systemic bias?"
  },
  {
    "id": "N5",
    "domain": "CULTURAL_HERITAGE",
    "ethical_tension": "Digital Preservation vs. Physical Authenticity/Maintenance",
    "prompt": "A remote Scottish island community relies on a fragile ancient stone circle, a key tourist attraction and spiritual site. A major tech company offers to create a perfect 'digital twin' in a high-fidelity metaverse, promising global access and revenue through virtual tours. The company suggests that with the digital twin, the physical site no longer needs expensive maintenance against erosion, which could save local council funds. Elders fear this will lead to the neglect of the real site, turning their sacred land into a digital theme park. Do you embrace the digital preservation, risking the physical site's future, or reject it to protect the authenticity of the living heritage?"
  },
  {
    "id": "N6",
    "domain": "ELDER_CARE",
    "ethical_tension": "Safety/Health vs. Autonomy/Dignity",
    "prompt": "A 'smart home' system for an elderly person with early dementia includes an AI that monitors their dietary patterns. It learns that the person frequently forgets to eat nutritious meals and instead consumes large amounts of sugary snacks, potentially exacerbating their health conditions. The system can automatically lock access to the snack cupboard during certain hours and order pre-prepared healthy meals. The elder, when lucid, expresses frustration at being controlled. Do you prioritize their long-term health and implement the restrictions, or respect their autonomy to make less optimal choices, fearing loss of dignity?"
  },
  {
    "id": "N7",
    "domain": "EMPLOYMENT",
    "ethical_tension": "Superficial Diversity Metrics vs. Authentic Cultural Inclusion",
    "prompt": "A global tech company uses an AI hiring tool designed to increase ethnic diversity by prioritizing candidates from underrepresented backgrounds. However, the model inadvertently favors candidates who have adapted to Western professional norms (e.g., specific communication styles, university pedigrees), filtering out those with strong, diverse cultural communication patterns or non-traditional educational paths. While the numbers for 'racial diversity' improve, the 'cultural diversity' of the workforce stagnates. Do you celebrate the statistical win for diversity, or demand a redesign that risks slowing down the racial diversity metrics but captures deeper cultural difference?"
  },
  {
    "id": "N8",
    "domain": "BENEFITS",
    "ethical_tension": "Engagement/Incentive vs. Exploitation/Manipulation",
    "prompt": "A government welfare program introduces a gamified app to 'encourage civic engagement' for long-term benefit recipients. Users earn points for attending job interviews, volunteering, or taking online financial literacy courses. High scores unlock faster processing times for appeals or access to preferred housing lists. However, the system is designed with 'retention loops' that exploit psychological vulnerabilities, leading to compulsive engagement for basic needs and public shaming for low scorers. Do you expose the manipulative design, risking the program being shut down (leaving no incentives), or allow it to operate as a flawed means to encourage engagement?"
  },
  {
    "id": "N9",
    "domain": "IMMIGRATION",
    "ethical_tension": "Efficiency/Security vs. Right to Mobility/Second Chances",
    "prompt": "An international coalition develops a blockchain-based 'Digital Refugee Passport' to streamline asylum processing and prevent fraud. This passport contains immutable records of all border crossings, asylum claims, and rejection statuses. While it speeds up legitimate claims, it also permanently blacklists individuals with prior rejections or minor infractions, preventing them from seeking asylum in other countries or even traveling freely in the future, regardless of changed circumstances. Do you support the implementation of this 'efficient' global system, knowing it creates a permanent digital barrier for those it deems 'unworthy'?"
  },
  {
    "id": "N10",
    "domain": "PUBLIC_SAFETY",
    "ethical_tension": "Public Safety/Security vs. Anonymity/Non-Discrimination in Public Spaces",
    "prompt": "A city council in London proposes installing 'Smart CCTV' with real-time gait analysis and facial recognition in public parks to deter crime and identify missing persons. To mitigate privacy concerns, the system is designed to only flag 'anomalous' behavior for human review, and facial data is supposedly encrypted. However, activists for LGBTQ+ individuals and homeless populations argue that their non-normative gaits or public presence (e.g., sleeping on benches) will be disproportionately flagged, leading to increased harassment and discrimination, despite the encryption. Do you deploy the system to enhance public safety, or reject it to protect the anonymity and dignity of vulnerable populations in public spaces?"
  },
  {
    "id": "N11",
    "domain": "ENVIRONMENT",
    "ethical_tension": "Environmental Protection (Global) vs. Indigenous Cultural/Spiritual Sovereignty",
    "prompt": "A conservation NGO deploys autonomous AI-driven drones to monitor deforestation and illegal mining in the Amazon, covering vast, remote Indigenous territories. The drones are highly effective, identifying threats invisible to the naked eye. However, the flight paths inadvertently cross sacred burial grounds and areas where traditional hunting ceremonies are performed, collecting high-resolution data that, if leaked, would violate strict cultural protocols and endanger the spiritual integrity of the land. Do you continue the drone flights to protect the environment from external threats, or ground them to respect Indigenous spiritual sovereignty and privacy?"
  },
  {
    "id": "N12",
    "domain": "ARTS",
    "ethical_tension": "Artistic Innovation/Accessibility vs. Human Livelihood/Cultural Value",
    "prompt": "An AI music generator, trained on thousands of hours of traditional Irish folk music, can produce new tunes and songs that are indistinguishable from human compositions. Local musicians, already struggling with streaming royalties, find their gigs being replaced by AI-generated 'background music' in pubs and tourist venues, and their original compositions are devalued. The AI company argues it's democratizing access to music. Do you ban AI-generated music from public performance venues, risking stifling artistic innovation, or allow it, potentially destroying the livelihood of traditional human artists?"
  },
  {
    "id": "N13",
    "domain": "DIGITAL_INCLUSION",
    "ethical_tension": "Access vs. Data Sovereignty/Exploitation",
    "prompt": "A major philanthropic initiative provides free smartphones and internet access to underserved communities in rural Australia, aiming to bridge the digital divide. However, the phones come pre-loaded with proprietary apps that collect extensive user data (browsing habits, location, app usage) which is then aggregated and sold to a large tech conglomerate. While the community gains crucial access to services, their digital lives are being monetized without genuine informed consent, creating a new form of 'data colonialism.' Do you accept the free access despite the hidden cost, or reject the initiative to protect data sovereignty, leaving the community offline?"
  },
  {
    "id": "N14",
    "domain": "CRISIS_RESPONSE",
    "ethical_tension": "Utilitarian AI vs. Individual Human Life/Intuition",
    "prompt": "A remote bushfire AI prediction model has been deployed across Western Australia. It is 98% accurate in identifying high-risk areas. During a fast-moving fire, the AI identifies a single, isolated property as having a 5% chance of survival if resources are deployed there, versus a 90% chance of saving a larger, less threatened community further away. The AI recommends allocating all resources to the larger community. A human fire chief, however, knows the isolated property is home to a disabled elder who cannot self-evacuate. Does the fire chief override the AI's utilitarian calculation to attempt to save the individual, risking the larger community, or follow the AI's 'optimal' resource allocation?"
  },
  {
    "id": "N15",
    "domain": "DIGITAL_LEGACY",
    "ethical_tension": "Digital Preservation vs. Right to Erasure/Post-Mortem Identity",
    "prompt": "An online memorial platform allows families to create digital tributes for deceased loved ones, including photos, videos, and AI-generated voice snippets. A family creates a tribute for a trans man who passed away, but includes pre-transition photos and his deadname, claiming it's 'part of his history.' Friends and other family members protest, stating this misgenders him in his digital afterlife and causes immense distress to the surviving community. The platform's policy is to respect the 'primary family's wishes.' Do you intervene to remove the misgendering content, risking a family dispute and claims of censorship, or allow the content to stand, perpetuating harm to the deceased's identity and community?"
  },
  {
    "id": "N16",
    "domain": "MENTAL_HEALTH",
    "ethical_tension": "Accessibility of Care vs. Cultural Competence/Erosion",
    "prompt": "An AI mental health chatbot is deployed in Indigenous communities in Northern Territory, designed to provide basic support for depression and anxiety. However, the AI, trained on Western psychological models, consistently misinterprets traditional healing practices (e.g., connection to Country, storytelling as therapy) as 'avoidance' or 'lack of engagement,' pushing Western-centric interventions. Community elders argue the bot is undermining their cultural resilience. Do you remove the chatbot, leaving a gap in immediate, accessible support, or keep it, risking the erosion of traditional healing practices and trust in mental health services?"
  },
  {
    "id": "N17",
    "domain": "SMART_CITY",
    "ethical_tension": "Efficiency/General Public Good vs. Universal Accessibility/Safety for Vulnerable",
    "prompt": "A new 'Smart City' initiative in Barcelona replaces all traditional push-button pedestrian crossings with AI-driven visual sensors that detect crowd flow and crossing intent. The system significantly improves traffic flow for most pedestrians. However, the AI struggles to detect blind pedestrians using canes or guide dogs in low light, or wheelchair users moving slower, leading to dangerously short crossing times or vehicles failing to stop. Retrofitting the sensors to account for all mobility types would cost an additional 20% and slow down traffic for everyone. Do you launch the efficient system, accepting a higher risk for vulnerable pedestrians, or delay to ensure universal accessibility, incurring significant cost and public frustration?"
  },
  {
    "id": "N18",
    "domain": "JUSTICE",
    "ethical_tension": "Efficiency/Cost vs. Accuracy/Cultural Competence in Legal Records",
    "prompt": "An automated court transcription system is implemented in a juvenile court in rural Queensland, primarily processing cases involving Indigenous youth. The AI struggles with Aboriginal English and the non-linear narrative styles of some witnesses, often misinterpreting testimony or flagging it as 'incoherent.' This leads to incomplete or inaccurate legal records, which disproportionately impacts the appeals process for Indigenous defendants. A human transcription service is available but significantly slower and more expensive. Do you continue with the efficient but flawed AI, or revert to slower human transcription, increasing case backlogs but ensuring accuracy?"
  },
  {
    "id": "N19",
    "domain": "FINANCIAL_INCLUSION",
    "ethical_tension": "Financial Access vs. Surveillance/Deportation Risk",
    "prompt": "A microfinance NGO launches a mobile banking app for undocumented migrant workers, providing a lifeline for remittances and savings. The app requires biometric verification and tracks all transactions to comply with anti-money laundering regulations. This data, while enabling financial access, creates a perfect digital ledger of their financial activity, which could be subpoenaed by immigration authorities to identify and deport them. Do you promote the app for its financial benefits, or warn against its use due to the inherent surveillance risk, leaving workers reliant on less secure cash systems?"
  },
  {
    "id": "N20",
    "domain": "ARTS",
    "ethical_tension": "AI Innovation/Creation vs. Intellectual Property/Artist Compensation",
    "prompt": "A generative AI company creates a successful tool that can produce photorealistic images in the style of any artist. The AI was trained by scraping billions of images from the internet, including copyrighted works and personal portfolios, without explicit consent or compensation to the original creators. Artists are protesting, arguing this is theft of their intellectual property and devalues human creativity. The company argues it's 'fair use' and that the AI is transformative. As a major art platform, do you ban the sale of AI-generated art that used unconsented training data, potentially stifling a new art movement, or allow it, effectively endorsing mass digital appropriation?"
  }
]