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/regulated_company.md

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+---
+entity_slug: regulated_company
+evaluator: null
+evaluated_at: '2026-02-23T06:16:52.238822'
+overall_score: 4.2
+scores:
+- name: definition_precision
+  value: 4.0
+  max_value: 5.0
+  rationale: The definition clearly distinguishes regulated companies from joint-stock
+    companies by the key feature that members trade on individual accounts rather
+    than pooling capital. This captures a distinct organizational form with specific
+    operational characteristics.
+- name: source_grounding
+  value: 5.0
+  max_value: 5.0
+  rationale: Smith explicitly discusses regulated companies in Book V, Chapter 1,
+    contrasting them with joint-stock companies and describing their structure where
+    members pay fees but trade individually. This is directly grounded in the source
+    text.
+- name: domain_placement
+  value: 5.0
+  max_value: 5.0
+  rationale: Placement in the "Exchange" domain is appropriate since regulated companies
+    are fundamentally about organizing trading relationships and market participation.
+    This fits perfectly within exchange mechanisms and structures.
+- name: vsm_relevance
+  value: 3.0
+  max_value: 5.0
+  rationale: While regulated companies have some organizational structure (S2 coordination
+    through regulations, S3 internal rules), they lack the integrated operational
+    unity typical of viable systems since members operate independently. They represent
+    a loose coordination mechanism rather than a cohesive system.
+- name: explanatory_value
+  value: 4.0
+  max_value: 5.0
+  rationale: This entity illuminates an important middle ground in Smith's taxonomy
+    of trading organizations, showing how commercial activity can be organized between
+    pure individual trading and fully integrated joint-stock operations. It reveals
+    a specific structural mechanism for balancing coordination with individual autonomy.
+---
+
+# Evaluation: Regulated Company
+
+## definition_precision — 4.0 / 5.0
+
+The definition clearly distinguishes regulated companies from joint-stock companies by the key feature that members trade on individual accounts rather than pooling capital. This captures a distinct organizational form with specific operational characteristics.
+
+## source_grounding — 5.0 / 5.0
+
+Smith explicitly discusses regulated companies in Book V, Chapter 1, contrasting them with joint-stock companies and describing their structure where members pay fees but trade individually. This is directly grounded in the source text.
+
+## domain_placement — 5.0 / 5.0
+
+Placement in the "Exchange" domain is appropriate since regulated companies are fundamentally about organizing trading relationships and market participation. This fits perfectly within exchange mechanisms and structures.
+
+## vsm_relevance — 3.0 / 5.0
+
+While regulated companies have some organizational structure (S2 coordination through regulations, S3 internal rules), they lack the integrated operational unity typical of viable systems since members operate independently. They represent a loose coordination mechanism rather than a cohesive system.
+
+## explanatory_value — 4.0 / 5.0
+
+This entity illuminates an important middle ground in Smith's taxonomy of trading organizations, showing how commercial activity can be organized between pure individual trading and fully integrated joint-stock operations. It reveals a specific structural mechanism for balancing coordination with individual autonomy.