Files

tegwick a9ca0adfcf 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>

2026-02-23 09:36:46 +01:00

3.4 KiB

Raw Blame History

entity_slug, evaluator, evaluated_at, overall_score, scores

entity_slug

evaluator

evaluated_at

overall_score

scores

economic_system_comparison

null

2026-02-23T05:13:42.760697

3.0

name	value	max_value	rationale
definition_precision	3.0	5.0	The definition captures a distinct analytical process but remains somewhat general and could apply to any comparative analysis. While not circular, it lacks the specificity that would make it uniquely applicable to Smith's economic framework.

name	value	max_value	rationale
source_grounding	2.0	5.0	The entity is attributed to "Book IV, Chapter 0" which doesn't exist in The Wealth of Nations, and the vague reference to Smith's "intention to explain both systems" lacks specific textual grounding. This appears to be an interpretive overlay rather than a concept Smith explicitly develops.

name	value	max_value	rationale
domain_placement	4.0	5.0	"General Theory" is an appropriate domain placement since comparative analysis of economic systems would indeed fall under theoretical frameworks rather than specific operational domains. The conceptual categorization fits well.

name	value	max_value	rationale
vsm_relevance	4.0	5.0	This entity maps well to S4 (intelligence/environmental adaptation) as it represents the analytical capability needed to evaluate different systemic approaches and adapt economic arrangements based on environmental circumstances. It could also relate to S5 for policy-level system selection.

name	value	max_value	rationale
explanatory_value	2.0	5.0	While the concept of comparing economic systems is valuable, this entity merely names the process without illuminating specific mechanisms or structural relations that Smith identifies. It lacks the depth needed to explain how such comparisons should be conducted or what criteria matter.

Evaluation: Economic System Comparison

definition_precision — 3.0 / 5.0

The definition captures a distinct analytical process but remains somewhat general and could apply to any comparative analysis. While not circular, it lacks the specificity that would make it uniquely applicable to Smith's economic framework.

source_grounding — 2.0 / 5.0

The entity is attributed to "Book IV, Chapter 0" which doesn't exist in The Wealth of Nations, and the vague reference to Smith's "intention to explain both systems" lacks specific textual grounding. This appears to be an interpretive overlay rather than a concept Smith explicitly develops.

domain_placement — 4.0 / 5.0

"General Theory" is an appropriate domain placement since comparative analysis of economic systems would indeed fall under theoretical frameworks rather than specific operational domains. The conceptual categorization fits well.

vsm_relevance — 4.0 / 5.0

This entity maps well to S4 (intelligence/environmental adaptation) as it represents the analytical capability needed to evaluate different systemic approaches and adapt economic arrangements based on environmental circumstances. It could also relate to S5 for policy-level system selection.

explanatory_value — 2.0 / 5.0

While the concept of comparing economic systems is valuable, this entity merely names the process without illuminating specific mechanisms or structural relations that Smith identifies. It lacks the depth needed to explain how such comparisons should be conducted or what criteria matter.

3.4 KiB Raw Blame History