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>

examples/infospace-with-history/output/evaluations/commercial_jealousy_mechanism.md

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+---
+entity_slug: commercial_jealousy_mechanism
+evaluator: null
+evaluated_at: '2026-02-23T04:58:35.395116'
+overall_score: 2.8
+scores:
+- name: definition_precision
+  value: 1.0
+  max_value: 5.0
+  rationale: There is no definition provided, only context. The context describes
+    a broad phenomenon but lacks the precision needed to distinguish this as a specific
+    mechanism versus general mercantilist behavior.
+- name: source_grounding
+  value: 3.0
+  max_value: 5.0
+  rationale: While Smith does discuss how nations restrict trade with rivals and favor
+    allies in Book IV, Chapter 6, the specific framing as a "commercial jealousy mechanism"
+    appears to be an interpretive overlay rather than Smith's own conceptualization.
+    The underlying phenomena are present but the mechanistic framing is imposed.
+- name: domain_placement
+  value: 4.0
+  max_value: 5.0
+  rationale: The "Regulation" domain is appropriate since this describes how nations
+    regulate trade relationships based on political considerations. This fits well
+    within Smith's broader critique of regulatory interventions in commerce.
+- name: vsm_relevance
+  value: 4.0
+  max_value: 5.0
+  rationale: This maps well to S4 (intelligence/environmental adaptation) as it describes
+    how nations respond to perceived threats from rivals, and potentially S5 (identity/policy)
+    as it involves national identity and strategic policy decisions. The mechanism
+    has clear VSM relevance.
+- name: explanatory_value
+  value: 2.0
+  max_value: 5.0
+  rationale: While it identifies a real pattern in mercantilist policy, it doesn't
+    illuminate the underlying structural mechanisms that drive this behavior beyond
+    restating that nations act on jealousy and self-interest. It names the phenomenon
+    without explaining why it persists or how it operates systematically.
+---
+
+# Evaluation: Commercial Jealousy Mechanism
+
+## definition_precision — 1.0 / 5.0
+
+There is no definition provided, only context. The context describes a broad phenomenon but lacks the precision needed to distinguish this as a specific mechanism versus general mercantilist behavior.
+
+## source_grounding — 3.0 / 5.0
+
+While Smith does discuss how nations restrict trade with rivals and favor allies in Book IV, Chapter 6, the specific framing as a "commercial jealousy mechanism" appears to be an interpretive overlay rather than Smith's own conceptualization. The underlying phenomena are present but the mechanistic framing is imposed.
+
+## domain_placement — 4.0 / 5.0
+
+The "Regulation" domain is appropriate since this describes how nations regulate trade relationships based on political considerations. This fits well within Smith's broader critique of regulatory interventions in commerce.
+
+## vsm_relevance — 4.0 / 5.0
+
+This maps well to S4 (intelligence/environmental adaptation) as it describes how nations respond to perceived threats from rivals, and potentially S5 (identity/policy) as it involves national identity and strategic policy decisions. The mechanism has clear VSM relevance.
+
+## explanatory_value — 2.0 / 5.0
+
+While it identifies a real pattern in mercantilist policy, it doesn't illuminate the underlying structural mechanisms that drive this behavior beyond restating that nations act on jealousy and self-interest. It names the phenomenon without explaining why it persists or how it operates systematically.