Implements markitect/llm/ package with concrete LLMAdapter implementations:
- OpenRouterAdapter: HTTP via urllib with retry/backoff on 429/5xx
- ClaudeCodeAdapter: subprocess-based Claude CLI with stdin piping
- Factory pattern: create_adapter("openrouter") or create_adapter("claude-code")
- API key resolution chain: constructor > env var > project-root key file
- 42 unit tests, 2 integration tests (gated on API key / CLI availability)
Also adds the infospace-with-history example with Wealth of Nations VSM
analysis pipeline, templates, schemas, source chapters, and processed
output for chapters 1-2. process_chapters.py now supports --provider
and --model flags for automatic LLM-driven processing.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
705 lines
25 KiB
Markdown
705 lines
25 KiB
Markdown
# Map Economic Entities to VSM Concepts
|
|
|
|
You are a systems theorist specializing in Stafford Beer's Viable System Model.
|
|
Your task is to map extracted economic entities to VSM concepts.
|
|
|
|
## Extracted Entities
|
|
|
|
--- ENTITY: division-of-labour ---
|
|
|
|
# Division of Labour
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
The separation of a work process into a number of distinct tasks, each performed
|
|
by a specialised worker, resulting in a significant increase in the productive
|
|
powers of labour. Smith identifies it as the principal cause of improvement in
|
|
the productive capacity of any trade, art, or manufacture. The effect arises
|
|
from three circumstances: increased dexterity, saved time in transition between
|
|
tasks, and the invention of labour-saving machinery.
|
|
|
|
## Source Chapter
|
|
|
|
Book I, Chapter 1: "Of the Division of Labour"
|
|
|
|
## Context
|
|
|
|
The division of labour is the central argument of the chapter. Smith opens by
|
|
asserting that it is the greatest source of improvement in productive powers,
|
|
then illustrates it through the pin-factory example, explains its three causal
|
|
mechanisms, and concludes by showing how it generates universal opulence through
|
|
exchange.
|
|
|
|
## Economic Domain
|
|
|
|
Production
|
|
|
|
## Smith's Original Wording
|
|
|
|
"The greatest improvements in the productive powers of labour, and the greater
|
|
part of the skill, dexterity, and judgment, with which it is anywhere directed,
|
|
or applied, seem to have been the effects of the division of labour."
|
|
|
|
## Modern Interpretation
|
|
|
|
The division of labour remains a foundational concept in economics and
|
|
organisational theory. Modern extensions include specialisation theory,
|
|
comparative advantage (Ricardo), and the study of transaction costs that
|
|
determine the boundaries between internal division and market exchange (Coase).
|
|
|
|
--- ENTITY: productive-powers-of-labour ---
|
|
|
|
# Productive Powers of Labour
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
The capacity of human labour to produce output, measured in terms of the
|
|
quantity and quality of goods a given number of workers can produce within
|
|
a given time. Smith argues that the division of labour is the primary cause
|
|
of increases in productive power, and that differences in productive power
|
|
explain differences in national wealth.
|
|
|
|
## Source Chapter
|
|
|
|
Book I, Chapter 1: "Of the Division of Labour"
|
|
|
|
## Context
|
|
|
|
Smith introduces productive powers as the dependent variable that the division
|
|
of labour improves. He contrasts the output of an unskilled individual worker
|
|
(one pin per day) with the output of a coordinated team under division of
|
|
labour (4,800 pins per person per day) to demonstrate the scale of improvement.
|
|
|
|
## Economic Domain
|
|
|
|
Production
|
|
|
|
## Smith's Original Wording
|
|
|
|
"This great increase in the quantity of work, which, in consequence of the
|
|
division of labour, the same number of people are capable of performing, is
|
|
owing to three different circumstances."
|
|
|
|
--- ENTITY: dexterity-of-the-workman ---
|
|
|
|
# Dexterity of the Workman
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
The skill and speed a worker acquires through repeated performance of a single
|
|
specialised operation. Smith identifies the increase in dexterity as the first
|
|
of three causes by which the division of labour improves productive power.
|
|
Specialisation reduces each worker's task to one simple operation, making it
|
|
the sole employment of their life, and thereby dramatically increasing their
|
|
proficiency.
|
|
|
|
## Source Chapter
|
|
|
|
Book I, Chapter 1: "Of the Division of Labour"
|
|
|
|
## Context
|
|
|
|
Presented as the first of three mechanisms explaining why the division of labour
|
|
increases output. Smith illustrates it with the example of nail-making: an
|
|
unskilled smith makes 200-300 nails per day, while a specialised nailer can
|
|
produce over 2,300.
|
|
|
|
## Economic Domain
|
|
|
|
Production
|
|
|
|
## Smith's Original Wording
|
|
|
|
"First, the improvement of the dexterity of the workmen, necessarily increases
|
|
the quantity of the work he can perform; and the division of labour, by reducing
|
|
every man's business to some one simple operation, and by making this operation
|
|
the sole employment of his life, necessarily increases very much the dexterity
|
|
of the workman."
|
|
|
|
--- ENTITY: saving-of-time ---
|
|
|
|
# Saving of Time
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
The elimination of time lost when a worker passes from one kind of work to
|
|
another. Smith identifies this as the second mechanism by which the division of
|
|
labour increases productive power. Time is lost both in physical transition
|
|
(moving between locations and tools) and in mental transition (the sauntering
|
|
and inattention that follows switching tasks).
|
|
|
|
## Source Chapter
|
|
|
|
Book I, Chapter 1: "Of the Division of Labour"
|
|
|
|
## Context
|
|
|
|
Presented as the second of three mechanisms. Smith argues the loss is greater
|
|
than commonly supposed, encompassing not only travel time but a psychological
|
|
cost: workers who constantly switch tasks develop habits of "sauntering" and
|
|
"indolent careless application" that reduce their output even during active work.
|
|
|
|
## Economic Domain
|
|
|
|
Production
|
|
|
|
## Smith's Original Wording
|
|
|
|
"Secondly, the advantage which is gained by saving the time commonly lost in
|
|
passing from one sort of work to another, is much greater than we should at
|
|
first view be apt to imagine it."
|
|
|
|
--- ENTITY: invention-of-machinery ---
|
|
|
|
# Invention of Machinery
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
The development of machines that facilitate and abridge labour, enabling one
|
|
person to do the work of many. Smith identifies this as the third mechanism
|
|
by which the division of labour increases productive power, and argues that
|
|
the division of labour itself stimulates invention, because workers focused
|
|
on a single operation naturally discover improvements to their specific task.
|
|
|
|
## Source Chapter
|
|
|
|
Book I, Chapter 1: "Of the Division of Labour"
|
|
|
|
## Context
|
|
|
|
Presented as the third mechanism. Smith provides the anecdote of the boy who
|
|
automated the valve on a fire engine to free himself for play. He extends the
|
|
argument beyond workers to include machine-makers and philosophers (men of
|
|
speculation), whose own specialised observation enables them to combine
|
|
knowledge from distant fields.
|
|
|
|
## Economic Domain
|
|
|
|
Production
|
|
|
|
## Smith's Original Wording
|
|
|
|
"Thirdly, and lastly, everybody must be sensible how much labour is facilitated
|
|
and abridged by the application of proper machinery. It is unnecessary to give
|
|
any example."
|
|
|
|
--- ENTITY: separation-of-trades ---
|
|
|
|
# Separation of Trades
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
The process by which distinct occupations emerge as separate specialisations,
|
|
each performed by dedicated practitioners rather than by a single person who
|
|
performs all tasks. Smith presents the separation of trades as both a
|
|
consequence and an indicator of the division of labour, noting that it
|
|
advances furthest in the most industrious and improved countries.
|
|
|
|
## Source Chapter
|
|
|
|
Book I, Chapter 1: "Of the Division of Labour"
|
|
|
|
## Context
|
|
|
|
Smith transitions from the pin-factory example to the economy-wide observation
|
|
that in improved societies, "the farmer is generally nothing but a farmer; the
|
|
manufacturer, nothing but a manufacturer." He contrasts manufacturing, where
|
|
trades separate extensively, with agriculture, where seasonal demands prevent
|
|
full separation.
|
|
|
|
## Economic Domain
|
|
|
|
Production
|
|
|
|
## Smith's Original Wording
|
|
|
|
"The separation of different trades and employments from one another, seems to
|
|
have taken place in consequence of this advantage."
|
|
|
|
--- ENTITY: the-workman ---
|
|
|
|
# The Workman
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
The individual labourer who performs productive work, whether in manufacturing
|
|
or agriculture. In the context of the division of labour, the workman is the
|
|
operative unit whose dexterity, time, and inventiveness are the channels through
|
|
which specialisation increases output. Smith portrays the workman both as a
|
|
beneficiary of the division of labour (higher output) and as its agent
|
|
(inventing machinery through focused attention).
|
|
|
|
## Source Chapter
|
|
|
|
Book I, Chapter 1: "Of the Division of Labour"
|
|
|
|
## Context
|
|
|
|
The workman appears throughout the chapter as the primary actor: the pin-maker,
|
|
the nailer, the country weaver, the boy at the fire engine. Smith attributes
|
|
both the productive gains and many mechanical inventions to ordinary workmen.
|
|
|
|
## Economic Domain
|
|
|
|
Production
|
|
|
|
--- ENTITY: the-philosopher ---
|
|
|
|
# The Philosopher
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
A person whose occupation is observation and speculation rather than direct
|
|
production — "men of speculation, whose trade it is not to do any thing, but
|
|
to observe every thing." Smith treats the philosopher as an economic actor
|
|
whose specialised function is combining knowledge from diverse fields to
|
|
produce innovations and improvements, analogous to how the workman improves
|
|
their own narrow task.
|
|
|
|
## Source Chapter
|
|
|
|
Book I, Chapter 1: "Of the Division of Labour"
|
|
|
|
## Context
|
|
|
|
Introduced near the end of Smith's discussion of the third mechanism (invention
|
|
of machinery). Smith notes that as society progresses, philosophy itself becomes
|
|
a specialised trade, subdivided into branches, with each philosopher becoming
|
|
expert in their field — the division of labour applied to intellectual work.
|
|
|
|
## Economic Domain
|
|
|
|
General Theory
|
|
|
|
## Smith's Original Wording
|
|
|
|
"In the progress of society, philosophy or speculation becomes, like every other
|
|
employment, the principal or sole trade and occupation of a particular class of
|
|
citizens."
|
|
|
|
--- ENTITY: universal-opulence ---
|
|
|
|
# Universal Opulence
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
The general material well-being that extends across all ranks of society,
|
|
including the lowest, as a consequence of the division of labour and the
|
|
resulting multiplication of production. Smith argues that through exchange,
|
|
every workman can supply others abundantly with their specialised product
|
|
and receive in return the products of others' specialisation, creating a
|
|
"general plenty" that benefits even the poorest members of a civilised society.
|
|
|
|
## Source Chapter
|
|
|
|
Book I, Chapter 1: "Of the Division of Labour"
|
|
|
|
## Context
|
|
|
|
The concluding argument of the chapter. Smith illustrates universal opulence
|
|
by examining the "accommodation of the most common artificer or daylabourer,"
|
|
showing that even a coarse woollen coat requires the cooperation of shepherds,
|
|
wool-combers, dyers, weavers, merchants, sailors, and many others — a vast
|
|
chain of interdependent labour that would be impossible without specialisation
|
|
and exchange.
|
|
|
|
## Economic Domain
|
|
|
|
Distribution
|
|
|
|
## Smith's Original Wording
|
|
|
|
"It is the great multiplication of the productions of all the different arts,
|
|
in consequence of the division of labour, which occasions, in a well-governed
|
|
society, that universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of
|
|
the people."
|
|
|
|
--- ENTITY: exchange ---
|
|
|
|
# Exchange
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
The act of trading one's surplus production for the goods produced by others.
|
|
Smith presents exchange as the mechanism by which the division of labour
|
|
translates into universal opulence: each workman disposes of their surplus
|
|
output and receives in return the surplus of others, so that all are
|
|
supplied beyond what any individual could produce alone.
|
|
|
|
## Source Chapter
|
|
|
|
Book I, Chapter 1: "Of the Division of Labour"
|
|
|
|
## Context
|
|
|
|
Exchange appears in the chapter's conclusion as the connecting mechanism
|
|
between specialised production and general welfare. Smith implicitly treats
|
|
it as prerequisite to the division of labour (explored further in Chapter 2),
|
|
since specialisation only benefits workers if they can trade their surplus.
|
|
|
|
## Economic Domain
|
|
|
|
Exchange
|
|
|
|
## Smith's Original Wording
|
|
|
|
"Every workman has a great quantity of his own work to dispose of beyond what
|
|
he himself has occasion for; and every other workman being exactly in the same
|
|
situation, he is enabled to exchange a great quantity of his own goods for a
|
|
great quantity or, what comes to the same thing, for the price of a great
|
|
quantity of theirs."
|
|
|
|
--- ENTITY: co-operation-of-labour ---
|
|
|
|
# Co-operation of Labour
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
The interdependent collaboration of many workers across different trades and
|
|
locations to produce a single finished good. Smith demonstrates that even the
|
|
simplest consumer goods in a civilised society require the combined efforts of
|
|
thousands of workers — shepherds, miners, sailors, smiths, weavers — who
|
|
collectively make possible what no individual could achieve alone.
|
|
|
|
## Source Chapter
|
|
|
|
Book I, Chapter 1: "Of the Division of Labour"
|
|
|
|
## Context
|
|
|
|
Smith's extended example of the day-labourer's woollen coat serves to illustrate
|
|
the vast scope of co-operation. He traces the supply chain from raw materials
|
|
through manufacture and transport to show that civilised consumption depends on
|
|
an immense network of specialised, interdependent labour.
|
|
|
|
## Economic Domain
|
|
|
|
Production
|
|
|
|
## Smith's Original Wording
|
|
|
|
"Without the assistance and co-operation of many thousands, the very meanest
|
|
person in a civilized country could not be provided, even according to, what we
|
|
very falsely imagine, the easy and simple manner in which he is commonly
|
|
accommodated."
|
|
|
|
--- ENTITY: manufactures ---
|
|
|
|
# Manufactures
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
The sector of production in which raw materials are transformed into finished
|
|
goods through a series of distinct operations, each typically performed by
|
|
specialised workers. Smith contrasts manufactures with agriculture, noting that
|
|
the former admits of far greater subdivision of labour and separation of trades,
|
|
and therefore exhibits far greater improvements in productive power.
|
|
|
|
## Source Chapter
|
|
|
|
Book I, Chapter 1: "Of the Division of Labour"
|
|
|
|
## Context
|
|
|
|
Manufactures serve as the primary setting for Smith's analysis of the division
|
|
of labour. The pin factory is a manufacture; so are the linen, woollen, and
|
|
hardware trades he references. Smith uses the greater divisibility of
|
|
manufacturing work to explain why rich countries excel more conspicuously over
|
|
poor countries in manufactures than in agriculture.
|
|
|
|
## Economic Domain
|
|
|
|
Production
|
|
|
|
--- ENTITY: agriculture ---
|
|
|
|
# Agriculture
|
|
|
|
## Definition
|
|
|
|
The sector of production concerned with the cultivation of land and the raising
|
|
of crops and livestock. Smith argues that agriculture does not admit of as many
|
|
subdivisions of labour as manufactures, because seasonal rhythms prevent workers
|
|
from specialising year-round in a single task. As a result, agricultural
|
|
productivity improves less dramatically with the division of labour than
|
|
manufacturing productivity.
|
|
|
|
## Source Chapter
|
|
|
|
Book I, Chapter 1: "Of the Division of Labour"
|
|
|
|
## Context
|
|
|
|
Agriculture is introduced as a counterpoint to manufactures. Smith notes that
|
|
the ploughman, harrower, sower, and reaper are often the same person, and that
|
|
this is why even rich countries do not surpass poor countries in agricultural
|
|
output as dramatically as in manufacturing output.
|
|
|
|
## Economic Domain
|
|
|
|
Production
|
|
|
|
## Smith's Original Wording
|
|
|
|
"The nature of agriculture, indeed, does not admit of so many subdivisions of
|
|
labour, nor of so complete a separation of one business from another, as
|
|
manufactures."
|
|
|
|
|
|
## VSM Framework Reference
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
id: vsm-framework
|
|
name: vsm_framework
|
|
artifact_type: content
|
|
description: Stafford Beer's Viable System Model reference for economic analysis
|
|
version: 1.0.0
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Stafford Beer's Viable System Model (VSM)
|
|
|
|
The Viable System Model (VSM) is a model of the organisational structure of any
|
|
autonomous system capable of producing itself. It was created by management
|
|
cybernetician Stafford Beer in his books *Brain of the Firm* (1972) and
|
|
*The Heart of Enterprise* (1979).
|
|
|
|
## Core Principle: Viability
|
|
|
|
A viable system is any system organised in such a way as to meet the demands
|
|
of surviving in a changing environment. One of the prime features of systems
|
|
that survive is that they are adaptable. The VSM expresses a model for a
|
|
viable system, which is an abstracted cybernetic description applicable to
|
|
any organisation that is a going concern.
|
|
|
|
## The Five Systems
|
|
|
|
### System 1 (S1) — Operations
|
|
|
|
The primary activities that produce the organisation's purpose. These are the
|
|
operational units that directly create value. Each operational element is itself
|
|
a viable system (the principle of recursion).
|
|
|
|
**In economic terms:** Productive enterprises, factories, farms, workshops,
|
|
individual labourers performing specialised tasks, merchant operations.
|
|
|
|
**Key properties:** Autonomy within constraints, self-organisation,
|
|
direct engagement with the environment.
|
|
|
|
### System 2 (S2) — Coordination
|
|
|
|
The information channels and bodies that allow the primary activities in
|
|
System 1 to communicate with each other and that allow System 3 to monitor
|
|
and coordinate activities. System 2 dampens oscillations and resolves
|
|
conflicts between operational units.
|
|
|
|
**In economic terms:** Market price mechanisms, trade customs, standard
|
|
weights and measures, commercial law, banking clearinghouses, trade guilds.
|
|
|
|
**Key properties:** Anti-oscillatory, dampening, scheduling, conflict
|
|
resolution, standardisation.
|
|
|
|
### System 3 (S3) — Control / Operational Management
|
|
|
|
The structures and controls that establish the rules, resources, rights,
|
|
and responsibilities of System 1 and provide an interface between Systems 1
|
|
and Systems 4/5. System 3 represents the day-to-day control of the
|
|
organisation. It optimises the internal environment.
|
|
|
|
**In economic terms:** Government regulation of trade, taxation policy, labour
|
|
laws, enforcement of contracts, the "invisible hand" as emergent internal
|
|
regulation, guilds and corporations governing members.
|
|
|
|
**Key properties:** Internal regulation, resource allocation, accountability,
|
|
synergy extraction, performance management.
|
|
|
|
### System 3* (S3*) — Audit / Monitoring
|
|
|
|
The audit and monitoring channel that allows System 3 to verify information
|
|
coming from System 1 through channels other than those provided by System 2.
|
|
System 3* provides sporadic, direct access to operational reality.
|
|
|
|
**In economic terms:** Market inspections, quality checks, auditing of accounts,
|
|
surprise investigations into trade practices, verification of weights and measures.
|
|
|
|
**Key properties:** Sporadic direct investigation, reality checking, bypassing
|
|
normal reporting channels.
|
|
|
|
### System 4 (S4) — Intelligence / Adaptation
|
|
|
|
The bodies and processes that look outward to the environment to monitor
|
|
how the organisation needs to adapt to remain viable. System 4 captures
|
|
all relevant information about the outside-and-then environment. It is
|
|
responsible for strategic responses.
|
|
|
|
**In economic terms:** Foreign intelligence about trade opportunities,
|
|
market research, new technology adoption, colonial exploration and trade
|
|
route development, understanding of foreign economic systems.
|
|
|
|
**Key properties:** Environmental scanning, future orientation, strategic
|
|
planning, modelling, research and development.
|
|
|
|
### System 5 (S5) — Policy / Identity
|
|
|
|
The policy-making body that balances demands from Systems 3 and 4 and defines
|
|
the identity, values, and purpose of the organisation. System 5 provides
|
|
closure to the whole system and represents its supreme authority.
|
|
|
|
**In economic terms:** Sovereign authority, constitutional principles governing
|
|
economic policy, national economic identity, the philosophical foundations
|
|
of economic systems (mercantilism vs. free trade), the overarching purpose
|
|
of the commonwealth.
|
|
|
|
**Key properties:** Identity, ethos, supreme command, policy closure,
|
|
balancing internal and external perspectives.
|
|
|
|
## Key Concepts
|
|
|
|
### Recursion
|
|
|
|
Every viable system contains and is contained in a viable system. The same
|
|
five-system structure recurs at every level of organisation. A workshop is
|
|
a viable system within a factory, which is a viable system within an
|
|
industry, which is a viable system within a national economy.
|
|
|
|
### Variety
|
|
|
|
A measure of the number of possible states of a system. The Law of Requisite
|
|
Variety (Ashby's Law) states that only variety can absorb variety. A
|
|
controller must have at least as much variety as the system it controls.
|
|
|
|
### Requisite Variety
|
|
|
|
The principle that for effective regulation, the variety of the regulator
|
|
must match the variety of the system being regulated. This is achieved
|
|
through variety attenuation (reducing the variety coming up from operations)
|
|
and variety amplification (increasing the variety of management's responses).
|
|
|
|
### Attenuation and Amplification
|
|
|
|
Variety engineering mechanisms. Attenuation reduces variety (e.g., reporting
|
|
summaries, statistical aggregation, standardisation). Amplification increases
|
|
variety (e.g., delegation, empowerment, decentralisation).
|
|
|
|
### Algedonic Signals
|
|
|
|
Emergency signals that bypass the normal management hierarchy to alert
|
|
higher systems of critical situations requiring immediate attention. Named
|
|
from the Greek words for pain (algos) and pleasure (hedone).
|
|
|
|
**In economic terms:** Market panics, famine signals, sudden price collapses,
|
|
trade embargoes, economic crises that demand immediate sovereign intervention.
|
|
|
|
### Autonomy
|
|
|
|
The degree of freedom granted to operational units (System 1) to self-organise
|
|
within constraints set by System 3. Beer argued that maximum autonomy
|
|
consistent with systemic cohesion yields maximum viability.
|
|
|
|
### Viability
|
|
|
|
The capacity of a system to maintain a separate existence and survive in a
|
|
changing environment. A viable system continuously adapts while maintaining
|
|
its identity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Mapping Guidelines
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
id: mapping-rules
|
|
name: mapping_rules
|
|
artifact_type: content
|
|
description: Guidelines for mapping economic entities to VSM concepts
|
|
version: 1.0.0
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# VSM Mapping Rules
|
|
|
|
## Mapping Principles
|
|
|
|
1. **Ground in Beer's definitions.** Every mapping rationale must reference
|
|
the specific VSM system function, not just a superficial resemblance.
|
|
|
|
2. **Prefer structural over metaphorical mappings.** A mapping is strong
|
|
when the economic entity performs the same *functional role* in Smith's
|
|
economic system as the VSM component performs in an organisation.
|
|
|
|
3. **Allow multiple mappings.** A single economic entity may map to
|
|
multiple VSM systems. For example, "the sovereign" may map to both
|
|
S3 (regulation) and S5 (policy). Create separate mapping documents
|
|
for each relationship.
|
|
|
|
4. **Respect recursion.** Consider at which level of recursion the mapping
|
|
applies. The division of labour within a single workshop (S1-level)
|
|
differs from the division of labour across an entire national economy
|
|
(higher recursion level).
|
|
|
|
## Mapping Strength Criteria
|
|
|
|
### Strong
|
|
- The entity directly performs the function of the VSM system.
|
|
- The mapping would be recognisable to a VSM practitioner without explanation.
|
|
- Example: "market price mechanism" → S2 (Coordination) — prices coordinate
|
|
supply and demand between producers.
|
|
|
|
### Moderate
|
|
- The entity partially performs the function or performs it in a limited context.
|
|
- The mapping requires some argument but is defensible.
|
|
- Example: "merchant" → S4 (Intelligence) — merchants gather information
|
|
about foreign markets, but this is not their primary function.
|
|
|
|
### Weak
|
|
- The mapping is speculative or metaphorical rather than structural.
|
|
- The connection exists but requires significant interpretive work.
|
|
- Example: "moral sentiments" → S5 (Policy) — broad ethical framework
|
|
shapes economic behaviour, but the connection is indirect.
|
|
|
|
## What NOT to Map
|
|
|
|
- Do not force mappings where none exist. It is valid for an entity to have
|
|
no clear VSM mapping — flag it with "Mapping Strength: Weak" and explain
|
|
the difficulty.
|
|
- Do not map purely descriptive/historical content that lacks functional
|
|
significance.
|
|
|
|
## VSM System Checklist
|
|
|
|
When mapping, consider each system:
|
|
|
|
| System | Question to Ask |
|
|
|--------|----------------|
|
|
| S1 | Does this entity directly produce value or output? |
|
|
| S2 | Does this entity coordinate between operational units? |
|
|
| S3 | Does this entity regulate internal operations? |
|
|
| S3* | Does this entity provide audit or verification? |
|
|
| S4 | Does this entity scan the environment or plan for the future? |
|
|
| S5 | Does this entity define identity, policy, or purpose? |
|
|
|
|
Also consider the key concepts:
|
|
- **Recursion**: At what level does this entity operate?
|
|
- **Variety**: Does this entity manage variety (attenuate or amplify)?
|
|
- **Algedonic signals**: Does this entity serve as an emergency signal?
|
|
- **Autonomy**: Does this entity relate to operational autonomy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Instructions
|
|
|
|
1. Review each extracted economic entity carefully.
|
|
2. For each entity, determine which VSM system(s) it most closely relates to.
|
|
3. Produce a mapping document for each entity-VSM relationship following
|
|
the VSM Mapping Schema v1.0.
|
|
4. Each mapping document must include:
|
|
- An H1 heading in the format "Entity Name -> VSM Concept Name"
|
|
- An Economic Entity Reference section
|
|
- A VSM Concept Reference section
|
|
- A Mapping Rationale section (minimum 30 words) grounded in Beer's definitions
|
|
- A Mapping Strength section rated as Strong, Moderate, or Weak
|
|
5. Where an entity maps to multiple VSM systems (recursion), create
|
|
separate mapping documents for each relationship.
|
|
6. Flag entities that don't clearly map to any VSM concept with a
|
|
"Mapping Strength: Weak" and note the difficulty in the rationale.
|
|
|
|
## Output Format
|
|
|
|
Output each mapping as a separate markdown document, delimited by
|
|
`--- MAPPING: <entity-name>-to-<vsm-concept> ---` markers.
|