feat(example): add per-entity LLM evaluations for 985 WoN entities (S3.3)

Batch evaluation of all 988 entities via OpenRouter. 984 succeeded on
first pass; 3 failed (network errors). eval-summary --update-metrics
written with per_entity_mean=3.9556.

Viability dashboard: 6/6 PASS
  redundancy_ratio   0.0061  (max 0.10)
  coverage_ratio     0.6190  (min 0.40)
  coherence_comps    0.0000  (max 3)
  consistency_cycles 0.0000  (max 0)
  granularity_entropy 2.6748 (min 1.0)
  per_entity_mean    3.9556  (min 3.5)

Dimension breakdown (mean across 985 entities):
  definition_precision  3.62
  source_grounding      4.36
  domain_placement      4.56
  vsm_relevance         3.31
  explanatory_value     3.94

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
2026-02-23 09:36:46 +01:00
parent 81a4c8796a
commit a9ca0adfcf
986 changed files with 63216 additions and 1 deletions

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
---
entity_slug: bank_financial_innovation_metrics
evaluator: null
evaluated_at: '2026-02-23T00:41:06.932134'
overall_score: 1.8
scores:
- name: definition_precision
value: 2.0
max_value: 5.0
rationale: The definition is vague and circular, essentially defining metrics as
"measures used to assess" without specifying what these metrics actually are or
how they differ from general performance indicators. It reads more like a modern
business concept than a distinct analytical tool.
- name: source_grounding
value: 1.0
max_value: 5.0
rationale: This entity appears to impose modern financial analytics terminology
onto Smith's text, which does not discuss formal "innovation metrics" or systematic
measurement frameworks for banking innovations. The language and conceptual framework
are anachronistic to Smith's 18th-century analysis.
- name: domain_placement
value: 3.0
max_value: 5.0
rationale: While "Accumulation" is a reasonable domain for banking-related concepts,
this particular entity feels more like a meta-analytical tool than a substantive
economic mechanism that Smith would have discussed in the context of capital accumulation.
- name: vsm_relevance
value: 2.0
max_value: 5.0
rationale: The entity could theoretically relate to S3 (monitoring/audit) or S4
(intelligence gathering), but it's too abstract and modern in conception to meaningfully
map to VSM systems in the context of Smith's economic analysis. It lacks the structural
specificity needed for clear VSM placement.
- name: explanatory_value
value: 1.0
max_value: 5.0
rationale: This entity adds no genuine explanatory power about economic mechanisms
or relationships that Smith identified. It merely labels a modern analytical practice
without illuminating any underlying economic structure or causal relationship
from the source material.
---
# Evaluation: Bank Financial Innovation Metrics
## definition_precision — 2.0 / 5.0
The definition is vague and circular, essentially defining metrics as "measures used to assess" without specifying what these metrics actually are or how they differ from general performance indicators. It reads more like a modern business concept than a distinct analytical tool.
## source_grounding — 1.0 / 5.0
This entity appears to impose modern financial analytics terminology onto Smith's text, which does not discuss formal "innovation metrics" or systematic measurement frameworks for banking innovations. The language and conceptual framework are anachronistic to Smith's 18th-century analysis.
## domain_placement — 3.0 / 5.0
While "Accumulation" is a reasonable domain for banking-related concepts, this particular entity feels more like a meta-analytical tool than a substantive economic mechanism that Smith would have discussed in the context of capital accumulation.
## vsm_relevance — 2.0 / 5.0
The entity could theoretically relate to S3 (monitoring/audit) or S4 (intelligence gathering), but it's too abstract and modern in conception to meaningfully map to VSM systems in the context of Smith's economic analysis. It lacks the structural specificity needed for clear VSM placement.
## explanatory_value — 1.0 / 5.0
This entity adds no genuine explanatory power about economic mechanisms or relationships that Smith identified. It merely labels a modern analytical practice without illuminating any underlying economic structure or causal relationship from the source material.