feat(example): add supply-chain-vsm composition demo (S3.5)

Demonstrates infospace composition: the Wealth of Nations infospace is
used as a discipline, applying Smith's economic framework as a lens to
analyse modern supply chain management concepts.

New example: examples/supply-chain-vsm/
- infospace.yaml binding WoN as discipline (../infospace-with-history)
- 3 source documents: coordination mechanisms, capital & inventory,
  market structure (~400 words each, original content)
- supply-chain-entity-schema-v1.0.md with WoN Concept required section
- won-mapping-schema-v1.0.md with Conceptual Continuity rating
- artifacts/won-reference/core-entities.md — 12 curated WoN entities
  for injection as discipline context
- 8 hand-crafted entity files demonstrating LLM output format
- 3 mapping files with full rationale and VSM inheritance chains
- Viable: YES (5/5 thresholds)

Key mappings demonstrated:
  Demand Signal          → Effectual Demand        (Strong, S2)
  Vendor-Managed Inventory → Division of Labour    (Strong, S1/S2)
  Just-in-Time Inventory → Circulating Capital     (Strong, S1/S3)
  Bullwhip Effect        → Natural Price           (Moderate, S2)
  Platform Intermediary  → Merchant Capital        (Strong, S2/S4)
  Monopsony Power        → Combination of Masters  (Strong, S3*)

Platform fix: entity_parser.py now recognises ## Supply Chain Domain
as a domain alias for ## Economic Domain, enabling composed infospaces
to use their own domain section name.

Tutorial §13 rewritten with real commands, real output, and the full
mapping table from the demo.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

examples/supply-chain-vsm/artifacts/guidelines/extraction-rules.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+# Entity Extraction Rules — Supply Chain Infospace
+
+## What Constitutes an Entity
+
+Extract a concept as an entity when it is:
+
+1. **Named**: referred to by a consistent, recognisable label in the
+   source material
+2. **Distinct**: meaningfully different from other entities being extracted
+3. **Explanatory**: contributes to understanding how supply chains work,
+   fail, or could be improved
+4. **Mappable**: has a plausible correspondence to at least one concept in
+   the Wealth of Nations reference set
+
+Do NOT extract:
+- Proper nouns for specific companies or products (Toyota, Amazon) unless
+  they name a concept (e.g., the Toyota Production System is a concept)
+- Historical examples unless the example itself is the concept
+- Vague modifiers (e.g., "lean", "agile" as standalone adjectives)
+
+## Granularity Rules
+
+Target 4–8 entities per source document. Avoid:
+- Entities so broad they subsume multiple distinct mechanisms (split them)
+- Entities so narrow they are examples of a broader concept (elevate them)
+- Entities that restate the same concept with different words (merge them)
+
+## Naming Conventions
+
+- Title case: `Bullwhip Effect`, not `bullwhip effect`
+- Noun phrases: `Supply Chain Visibility`, not `supply chain is visible`
+- Avoid acronyms in titles: `Just-in-Time Inventory`, not `JIT Inventory`
+
+## WoN Cross-Reference
+
+For each entity, consult the WoN core entity reference
+(`artifacts/won-reference/core-entities.md`) to identify the most relevant
+Wealth of Nations concept. Every entity should have a WoN Concept section —
+even if the mapping is weak, noting the absence of a direct analogue is
+informative.
+
+## Supply Chain Domain Assignment
+
+Assign the supply chain domain that best characterises the entity:
+
+- **Coordination**: mechanisms that synchronise activity across chain nodes
+- **Capital Management**: decisions about how working capital is deployed
+- **Market Structure**: competitive arrangements, power relations, platform dynamics
+- **Risk**: disruption, fragility, resilience
+- **Logistics**: physical movement, warehousing, last-mile

examples/supply-chain-vsm/artifacts/guidelines/mapping-rules.md

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+# WoN Mapping Rules — Supply Chain Infospace
+
+## Purpose of Mapping
+
+The mapping stage asks: which Wealth of Nations concept does this supply
+chain entity most directly correspond to? The goal is not to find a
+superficial name match but to identify structural correspondence — same
+mechanism, same trade-off, same systemic role — even when the surface form
+is entirely different.
+
+Smith had no concept of just-in-time inventory or logistics platforms. But
+he had detailed accounts of circulating capital, merchant intermediaries,
+and market price oscillation. The mapping discipline asks whether modern
+concepts are genuinely new structures or modern instantiations of mechanisms
+Smith already described.
+
+## Mapping Strength Calibration
+
+**Strong**: The modern concept and the WoN concept are the same mechanism
+in different historical settings. The supply chain entity could be used
+as an example in a modern edition of Smith's chapter, with only contextual
+updating needed.
+
+Example: Vendor-Managed Inventory is a Strong map to Division of Labour —
+the function of inventory management is delegated to the party with the
+greatest competence and information, which is precisely Smith's argument
+for specialisation.
+
+**Moderate**: The concepts share structural logic but differ in important
+ways — the modern concept has features Smith's lacks, or operates under
+conditions Smith did not analyse. The WoN concept illuminates the modern
+concept but does not fully characterise it.
+
+Example: Bullwhip Effect is a Moderate map to Natural Price as Central Price —
+both describe oscillation of a market signal around a theoretical equilibrium,
+but the bullwhip's amplification mechanism is an information distortion Smith
+did not analyse in this form.
+
+**Weak**: The mapping is analogical — useful for analysis but the
+correspondence is partial or strained. The WoN concept provides a useful
+frame but should not be treated as explanatory of the modern concept.
+
+## One-to-Many Mappings
+
+A supply chain entity may map to more than one WoN concept. Where this
+occurs, create a separate mapping entry for each WoN concept, explaining
+the different facets each illuminates.
+
+## Unmappable Entities
+
+If no plausible WoN mapping exists (the concept is genuinely novel),
+document this explicitly with a brief explanation of what Smith's framework
+lacks that would be needed to capture the concept.
+
+## VSM Inheritance
+
+Every WoN entity in the reference set has a VSM system assignment. When
+a supply chain entity maps to a WoN entity, it inherits that VSM position.
+If the supply chain entity maps to multiple WoN entities with different VSM
+assignments, note the primary inheritance and explain any secondary VSM roles.