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

3.5 KiB

Raw Blame History

entity_slug, evaluator, evaluated_at, overall_score, scores

entity_slug

evaluator

evaluated_at

overall_score

scores

economic_system_structure

null

2026-02-23T05:21:03.439317

2.0

name	value	max_value	rationale
definition_precision	2.0	5.0	The definition is overly broad and umbrella-like, essentially describing "how economies are organized" in general terms. It lacks precision and could apply to virtually any economic arrangement, making it more of a meta-category than a distinct analytical concept.

name	value	max_value	rationale
source_grounding	2.0	5.0	While Smith does analyze different economic systems, this entity appears to impose a modern organizational framework vocabulary ("institutional arrangements," "decision-making authority") that doesn't clearly emerge from Smith's actual text. The reference to "Book IV, Chapter 0" is also problematic as Book IV doesn't have a Chapter 0.

name	value	max_value	rationale
domain_placement	3.0	5.0	"General Theory" is appropriate given the broad, structural nature of this concept. However, the entity is so abstract that it might be better placed in a methodological or meta-theoretical category rather than substantive economic theory.

name	value	max_value	rationale
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 entire organizational structure rather than identifying particular cybernetic functions, making it VSM-irrelevant rather than VSM-mappable.

name	value	max_value	rationale
explanatory_value	2.0	5.0	The entity provides minimal explanatory power, functioning more as a general label than as an analytical tool that illuminates specific mechanisms or relationships. It names a broad phenomenon without offering insight into how economic systems actually function or what makes them viable.

Evaluation: Economic System Structure

definition_precision — 2.0 / 5.0

The definition is overly broad and umbrella-like, essentially describing "how economies are organized" in general terms. It lacks precision and could apply to virtually any economic arrangement, making it more of a meta-category than a distinct analytical concept.

source_grounding — 2.0 / 5.0

While Smith does analyze different economic systems, this entity appears to impose a modern organizational framework vocabulary ("institutional arrangements," "decision-making authority") that doesn't clearly emerge from Smith's actual text. The reference to "Book IV, Chapter 0" is also problematic as Book IV doesn't have a Chapter 0.

domain_placement — 3.0 / 5.0

"General Theory" is appropriate given the broad, structural nature of this concept. However, the entity is so abstract that it might be better placed in a methodological or meta-theoretical category rather than substantive economic theory.

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 entire organizational structure rather than identifying particular cybernetic functions, making it VSM-irrelevant rather than VSM-mappable.

explanatory_value — 2.0 / 5.0

The entity provides minimal explanatory power, functioning more as a general label than as an analytical tool that illuminates specific mechanisms or relationships. It names a broad phenomenon without offering insight into how economic systems actually function or what makes them viable.

3.5 KiB Raw Blame History