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/output/mappings/capital-and-inventory-mappings.md

@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+# WoN Mappings — Capital and Inventory
+
+Generated from: `artifacts/sources/capital-and-inventory.md`
+
+---
+
+# Just-in-Time Inventory → Circulating Capital
+
+## Supply Chain Entity
+
+Just-in-Time Inventory
+
+## WoN Entity
+
+Circulating Capital
+
+## Mapping Rationale
+
+Smith defines circulating capital as the component of capital consumed
+each productive cycle that yields its return only by changing hands —
+contrasted with fixed capital (durable plant and equipment). He argues
+that the faster circulating capital turns over, the more productive output
+can be generated from a given capital stock. JIT inventory management is
+an explicit strategy to maximise the velocity of the circulating capital
+cycle by minimising the time capital spends frozen as inventory. The
+financial logic is identical: reduce dwell time, increase velocity,
+extract more productive output per unit of capital employed.
+
+## Conceptual Continuity
+
+Strong — JIT is Smith's circulating capital theory operationalised as an
+inventory management practice. The mechanism (faster turnover of working
+capital) and the goal (higher productive output per unit of capital) are
+the same; only the technological form differs.
+
+## VSM Inheritance
+
+Just-in-Time Inventory inherits S1/S3 via Circulating Capital (operational
+resource; managed for return velocity through S3 capital management policy).
+
+---
+
+# Safety Stock → Accumulation of Stock
+
+## Supply Chain Entity
+
+Safety Stock
+
+## WoN Entity
+
+Accumulation of Stock
+
+## Mapping Rationale
+
+Smith describes stock accumulation as a prerequisite for economic activity:
+before workers can be employed in specialised production, the employer must
+have accumulated sufficient stock to sustain them while production is
+in progress — before any output can be sold. Safety stock is a modern
+instantiation of this logic: productive continuity requires holding a
+buffer of stock to absorb demand and supply variability, just as Smith's
+producer needed reserves before specialising. Both forms of stock are
+held not for immediate productive use but as insurance against disruption
+to continuous operations. The trade-off Smith identifies — between
+accumulating stock and deploying it productively — is exactly the safety
+stock optimisation problem.
+
+## Conceptual Continuity
+
+Moderate — The reserve function is shared, but Smith's accumulation of
+stock is primarily an enabling condition for production while safety stock
+is an operational buffer. The temporal purpose differs (enabling new
+activity vs. maintaining existing activity), though the economic logic
+(idle capital as insurance against continuity risk) is the same.
+
+## VSM Inheritance
+
+Safety Stock inherits S3 via Accumulation of Stock (capital management
+decision about how much reserve to hold against operational risk).

examples/supply-chain-vsm/output/mappings/coordination-mechanisms-mappings.md

@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
+# WoN Mappings — Coordination Mechanisms
+
+Generated from: `artifacts/sources/coordination-mechanisms.md`
+
+---
+
+# Bullwhip Effect → Natural Price as Central Price
+
+## Supply Chain Entity
+
+Bullwhip Effect
+
+## WoN Entity
+
+Natural Price as Central Price
+
+## Mapping Rationale
+
+Smith describes natural price as a centre of gravity around which market
+price perpetually oscillates. The bullwhip effect describes an analogous
+oscillation in supply chain order quantities around actual demand. In both
+cases, a signal (market price; order quantity) should converge to a
+reference value (natural price; true demand) through a corrective
+mechanism, but systematic distortions prevent convergence. Smith's
+mechanism is capital mobility; the bullwhip's is information transparency.
+Where Smith shows that monopoly or regulation blocks convergence, the
+bullwhip shows that information delay and batching produce the same failure
+in a nominally competitive chain.
+
+## Conceptual Continuity
+
+Moderate — The oscillation-around-equilibrium structure is shared, but
+the bullwhip's amplification mechanism (each tier adding safety buffers)
+is an information processing problem that Smith did not specifically analyse.
+His account of price oscillation focuses on capital reallocation; the
+bullwhip operates through order distortion without necessarily involving
+capital reallocation.
+
+## VSM Inheritance
+
+Bullwhip Effect inherits S2 via Natural Price as Central Price (coordination
+layer failure — the anti-oscillation mechanism is absent or impaired).
+
+---
+
+# Vendor-Managed Inventory → Division of Labour
+
+## Supply Chain Entity
+
+Vendor-Managed Inventory
+
+## WoN Entity
+
+Division of Labour
+
+## Mapping Rationale
+
+Smith argues that dividing labour so each party performs only what they
+are best equipped to do increases productivity and reduces waste. VMI
+applies this principle at the inter-firm boundary: the inventory
+replenishment function, previously split between buyer (tracking stock
+levels) and supplier (responding to batch orders), is consolidated with
+the supplier. The supplier has superior information about their own lead
+times and production capacity, and direct visibility of consumption rather
+than orders. The functional consolidation reduces the coordination friction
+at the boundary and improves signal quality — precisely the efficiency
+gains Smith predicts from specialisation.
+
+## Conceptual Continuity
+
+Strong — VMI is a direct application of division of labour at the
+inter-firm level. The boundary conditions are different (firms rather
+than workers; coordination through IT rather than supervision), but
+the mechanism — assigning a function to the party best positioned to
+perform it — is identical.
+
+## VSM Inheritance
+
+Vendor-Managed Inventory inherits S1/S2 via Division of Labour (operational
+specialisation creating a more effective coordination arrangement).
+
+---
+
+# Demand Signal → Effectual Demand
+
+## Supply Chain Entity
+
+Demand Signal
+
+## WoN Entity
+
+Effectual Demand
+
+## Mapping Rationale
+
+Smith's effectual demand — the demand of those willing and able to pay —
+is the signal that calls productive resources into action. When effectual
+demand exceeds supply, market price rises and capital is attracted; when
+it falls short, production contracts. The modern demand signal serves the
+same coordination function: it tells upstream nodes how much to produce.
+The structural difference is one of mechanism: Smith's effectual demand
+works through price as a lagged, aggregated, emergent signal; the modern
+demand signal is an explicit, real-time, granular data feed. The goal
+(synchronising production with consumption) and the failure mode (distorted
+signals cause misallocation) are shared.
+
+## Conceptual Continuity
+
+Strong — Effectual demand and the demand signal are the same coordination
+function in different technological settings. The modern version is
+Smith's concept made explicit and machine-readable.
+
+## VSM Inheritance
+
+Demand Signal inherits S2 via Effectual Demand (primary coordination
+variable regulating upstream resource allocation).

examples/supply-chain-vsm/output/mappings/market-structure-mappings.md

@@ -0,0 +1,126 @@
+# WoN Mappings — Market Structure
+
+Generated from: `artifacts/sources/market-structure.md`
+
+---
+
+# Platform Intermediary → Merchant Capital
+
+## Supply Chain Entity
+
+Platform Intermediary
+
+## WoN Entity
+
+Merchant Capital
+
+## Mapping Rationale
+
+Smith analyses merchant capital as capital employed to buy in one market
+and sell in another, earning profit from controlling access to exchange
+rather than from production. He notes that merchants are mobile — they
+have no necessary attachment to any productive system — which gives them
+structural leverage over producers who are geographically fixed. Platform
+intermediaries are a high-leverage form of the same structure: they control
+access to exchange (the matching infrastructure) without bearing inventory
+risk, earning profit from transaction fees and data rather than from
+buying and reselling. The merchant's physical mobility translates into
+the platform's structural mobility — the platform has no fixed attachment
+to any producer's fate, yet producers cannot exit without losing network
+access.
+
+## Conceptual Continuity
+
+Strong — Platform intermediaries are the modern form of merchant capital:
+the mechanism (control of exchange access, leverage over producers,
+profit from intermediation rather than production) is identical. The
+innovation is eliminating inventory risk while retaining coordination
+power, which makes platforms a more concentrated and profitable form of
+merchant capital than Smith could have envisioned.
+
+## VSM Inheritance
+
+Platform Intermediary inherits S2/S4 via Merchant Capital (coordination
+infrastructure with intelligence function — aggregating market data while
+intermediating transactions).
+
+---
+
+# Monopsony Power → Combination of Masters
+
+## Supply Chain Entity
+
+Monopsony Power
+
+## WoN Entity
+
+Combination of Masters
+
+## Mapping Rationale
+
+Smith describes the combination of masters as the coordinated exercise of
+employer power to suppress wages below the competitive level. He notes
+these combinations are common, rarely discussed publicly, and facilitated
+by the smaller number of employers relative to workers. Modern supply chain
+monopsony operates through the same structural mechanism: a concentrated
+buyer (or industry norm among buyers) facing atomistic suppliers
+systematically extracts terms — lower prices, extended payment, cost
+absorption — that suppliers cannot individually refuse without losing the
+customer. The power asymmetry (concentrated vs. atomistic; each party's
+outside options) is identical. Smith's analysis predicts the modern
+outcome: margin compression, underinvestment, and fragility on the supplier
+side.
+
+## Conceptual Continuity
+
+Strong — Monopsony power in supply chains is Smith's combination of masters
+applied to the buyer–supplier relationship rather than the employer–worker
+relationship. The market structure (concentrated power facing fragmented
+supply of a factor) and the mechanism (systematic extraction below
+competitive returns) are the same.
+
+## VSM Inheritance
+
+Monopsony Power inherits S3* via Combination of Masters (distortion of
+the S2 coordination signal through coordinated anti-competitive behaviour
+at the management boundary).
+
+---
+
+# Single-Source Dependency → Monopoly in Trade
+
+## Supply Chain Entity
+
+Single-Source Dependency
+
+## WoN Entity
+
+Monopoly in Trade
+
+## Mapping Rationale
+
+Smith argues that monopolists always charge the highest price buyers will
+bear, because no competitive alternative disciplines them. A single-source
+supplier during a supply disruption is a temporary monopolist: the buyer
+has no immediate alternative, demand for the component is inelastic in
+the short run, and the supplier can extract above-natural prices. Smith's
+account of monopoly — restricted supply, elevated price, distorted resource
+allocation — applies precisely to the disrupted single-source scenario.
+The difference is that single-source dependency produces episodic monopoly
+power (during disruptions) rather than Smith's continuous monopoly; but
+the mechanism and the welfare consequences are the same.
+
+## Conceptual Continuity
+
+Moderate — The monopoly pricing mechanism is shared, but Smith's monopoly
+is a stable market structure while single-source dependency produces
+temporary monopoly only during disruptions. The strategic implications
+also differ: Smith focuses on restricting supply to maintain high prices,
+while single-source power is an inadvertent consequence of concentrated
+specialisation rather than deliberate supply restriction.
+
+## VSM Inheritance
+
+Single-Source Dependency inherits S4/S5 via Monopoly in Trade (intelligence
+failure creating conditions for policy-level market distortion when
+disruption occurs).