tegwick
fa27572f43
INFRA-TASKS #5 — process_chapters.py now skips writing *-prompt.md files when the corresponding output file already exists on disk. DB-only rebuilds no longer dirty the working tree with unchanged prompt content. INFRA-TASKS #8 — Added '## Quality Metrics' section to the entity and VSM mapping schemas, defining the five evaluation dimensions (Definition Precision, Source Grounding, Domain Placement, VSM Relevance, Explanatory Value) with 1–5 rubrics used by the evaluate-entity template. Also updated INFRA-TASKS.md to reflect current resolution status for tasks 4–19 across S2 and S3. Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
61 lines
2.4 KiB
Markdown
61 lines
2.4 KiB
Markdown
# VSM Mapping Schema v1.0
|
||
|
||
Schema definition for entity-to-VSM concept mapping documents.
|
||
|
||
## Required Sections
|
||
|
||
### Economic Entity Reference
|
||
The name and identifier of the economic entity being mapped.
|
||
Must correspond to an existing entity in the entities collection.
|
||
|
||
### VSM Concept Reference
|
||
The name and identifier of the VSM concept being mapped to.
|
||
Must correspond to an existing concept in the concepts collection.
|
||
|
||
### Mapping Rationale
|
||
A detailed explanation of why this economic entity maps to this VSM concept.
|
||
Should reference specific properties of both the entity and the concept
|
||
that justify the mapping (minimum 30 words).
|
||
|
||
### Mapping Strength
|
||
One of:
|
||
- **Strong**: Direct structural or functional correspondence
|
||
- **Moderate**: Clear conceptual parallel with some differences
|
||
- **Weak**: Loose analogy or partial overlap
|
||
|
||
## Optional Sections
|
||
|
||
### Counter-arguments
|
||
Reasons why this mapping might be contested or why the entity
|
||
might not fit the VSM concept perfectly.
|
||
|
||
### Alternative Mappings
|
||
Other VSM concepts this entity could plausibly map to,
|
||
with brief rationale for each alternative.
|
||
|
||
## Quality Metrics
|
||
|
||
Used by the `evaluate-entity` prompt template when assessing mapping quality.
|
||
Each dimension is scored 1–5, where 1 = very poor and 5 = excellent.
|
||
|
||
### Rationale Rigour (1-5)
|
||
Is the mapping justified with reference to Beer's VSM definitions, not just
|
||
surface-level analogy? A score of 5 means the rationale cites specific VSM
|
||
properties (e.g., "S2 attenuates variety between S1 units") and shows how
|
||
the economic entity fulfils that role. A score of 1 means the rationale is
|
||
a loose metaphor with no structural grounding.
|
||
|
||
### Strength Calibration (1-5)
|
||
Is the declared Mapping Strength (Strong, Moderate, Weak) consistent with
|
||
the rationale given? A score of 5 means the declared strength matches the
|
||
depth of correspondence described. A score of 1 means the strength is
|
||
overclaimed (e.g., "Strong" for a tangential analogy) or underclaimed
|
||
(e.g., "Weak" for a direct structural match).
|
||
|
||
## Validation Rules
|
||
|
||
1. The document MUST contain an H1 heading in the format "Entity Name -> VSM Concept Name".
|
||
2. The document MUST contain all four required sections: Economic Entity Reference, VSM Concept Reference, Mapping Rationale, Mapping Strength.
|
||
3. The Mapping Strength MUST be one of: Strong, Moderate, Weak.
|
||
4. The document MUST reference both an economic entity and a VSM concept.
|