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/frugality_versus_prodigality.md

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+---
+entity_slug: frugality_versus_prodigality
+evaluator: null
+evaluated_at: '2026-02-23T05:32:09.678108'
+overall_score: 1.8
+scores:
+- name: definition_precision
+  value: 1.0
+  max_value: 5.0
+  rationale: There is no definition provided at all, making it impossible to assess
+    precision or distinctness. The entity name suggests a comparison between two economic
+    behaviors but lacks any conceptual clarity.
+- name: source_grounding
+  value: 3.0
+  max_value: 5.0
+  rationale: The contrast between frugality and prodigality is indeed present in Smith's
+    work, particularly in his discussion of capital accumulation and consumption patterns.
+    However, without proper definition or context, it's unclear if this captures Smith's
+    specific treatment of these concepts.
+- name: domain_placement
+  value: 2.0
+  max_value: 5.0
+  rationale: While frugality and prodigality relate to economic behavior, the unspecified
+    domain placement makes it impossible to assess correctness. This concept likely
+    belongs in discussions of capital formation, consumption, or individual economic
+    behavior.
+- name: vsm_relevance
+  value: 2.0
+  max_value: 5.0
+  rationale: This could potentially map to S3 (internal regulation) as it deals with
+    resource allocation decisions, but the lack of definition makes VSM placement
+    speculative. The concept is too abstractly presented to determine clear systemic
+    relevance.
+- name: explanatory_value
+  value: 1.0
+  max_value: 5.0
+  rationale: Without definition or context, this entity provides no explanatory power
+    and merely names a dichotomy. It fails to illuminate any mechanism or structural
+    relation that would enhance understanding of economic systems.
+---
+
+# Evaluation: Frugality Versus Prodigality
+
+## definition_precision — 1.0 / 5.0
+
+There is no definition provided at all, making it impossible to assess precision or distinctness. The entity name suggests a comparison between two economic behaviors but lacks any conceptual clarity.
+
+## source_grounding — 3.0 / 5.0
+
+The contrast between frugality and prodigality is indeed present in Smith's work, particularly in his discussion of capital accumulation and consumption patterns. However, without proper definition or context, it's unclear if this captures Smith's specific treatment of these concepts.
+
+## domain_placement — 2.0 / 5.0
+
+While frugality and prodigality relate to economic behavior, the unspecified domain placement makes it impossible to assess correctness. This concept likely belongs in discussions of capital formation, consumption, or individual economic behavior.
+
+## vsm_relevance — 2.0 / 5.0
+
+This could potentially map to S3 (internal regulation) as it deals with resource allocation decisions, but the lack of definition makes VSM placement speculative. The concept is too abstractly presented to determine clear systemic relevance.
+
+## explanatory_value — 1.0 / 5.0
+
+Without definition or context, this entity provides no explanatory power and merely names a dichotomy. It fails to illuminate any mechanism or structural relation that would enhance understanding of economic systems.