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/economic_system_interaction.md

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+---
+entity_slug: economic_system_interaction
+evaluator: null
+evaluated_at: '2026-02-23T05:17:49.213768'
+overall_score: 2.0
+scores:
+- name: definition_precision
+  value: 2.0
+  max_value: 5.0
+  rationale: The definition is overly broad and vague, essentially describing any
+    form of interaction within economic systems without establishing clear boundaries
+    or distinguishing characteristics. It reads more like a general description of
+    systemic relationships rather than a precise conceptual definition.
+- name: source_grounding
+  value: 2.0
+  max_value: 5.0
+  rationale: While Smith certainly discusses how economic elements interact, this
+    entity appears to be a modern systems theory overlay rather than a concept Smith
+    explicitly articulates. The attribution to "Book IV, Chapter 0" is suspicious
+    as chapters typically don't start at zero, and the definition uses contemporary
+    systems language not found in Smith's work.
+- name: domain_placement
+  value: 3.0
+  max_value: 5.0
+  rationale: '"General Theory" is an appropriate domain for such a broad systemic
+    concept, though the entity is so abstract it could arguably belong in multiple
+    domains. The placement is reasonable given the entity''s scope but doesn''t add
+    much specificity.'
+- name: vsm_relevance
+  value: 1.0
+  max_value: 5.0
+  rationale: This entity is far too abstract and general to map meaningfully to any
+    specific VSM system - it essentially describes the meta-concept of interaction
+    itself rather than particular types of systemic functions. It's not VSM-neutral
+    so much as VSM-irrelevant due to its lack of specificity.
+- name: explanatory_value
+  value: 2.0
+  max_value: 5.0
+  rationale: The entity provides minimal explanatory power as it merely names the
+    general phenomenon of economic interaction without illuminating specific mechanisms,
+    structures, or causal relationships. It's more of a placeholder concept than an
+    analytical tool.
+---
+
+# Evaluation: Economic System Interaction
+
+## definition_precision — 2.0 / 5.0
+
+The definition is overly broad and vague, essentially describing any form of interaction within economic systems without establishing clear boundaries or distinguishing characteristics. It reads more like a general description of systemic relationships rather than a precise conceptual definition.
+
+## source_grounding — 2.0 / 5.0
+
+While Smith certainly discusses how economic elements interact, this entity appears to be a modern systems theory overlay rather than a concept Smith explicitly articulates. The attribution to "Book IV, Chapter 0" is suspicious as chapters typically don't start at zero, and the definition uses contemporary systems language not found in Smith's work.
+
+## domain_placement — 3.0 / 5.0
+
+"General Theory" is an appropriate domain for such a broad systemic concept, though the entity is so abstract it could arguably belong in multiple domains. The placement is reasonable given the entity's scope but doesn't add much specificity.
+
+## vsm_relevance — 1.0 / 5.0
+
+This entity is far too abstract and general to map meaningfully to any specific VSM system - it essentially describes the meta-concept of interaction itself rather than particular types of systemic functions. It's not VSM-neutral so much as VSM-irrelevant due to its lack of specificity.
+
+## explanatory_value — 2.0 / 5.0
+
+The entity provides minimal explanatory power as it merely names the general phenomenon of economic interaction without illuminating specific mechanisms, structures, or causal relationships. It's more of a placeholder concept than an analytical tool.