---
entity_slug: agricultural_development_constraints
evaluator: null
evaluated_at: '2026-02-23T00:26:27.254856'
overall_score: 4.4
scores:
- name: definition_precision
  value: 4.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: The definition clearly identifies specific institutional barriers (primogeniture,
    entails, servile labor, etc.) and their collective effect on agricultural productivity.
    While comprehensive, it avoids being overly broad by focusing on concrete legal
    and social mechanisms rather than vague generalizations.
- name: source_grounding
  value: 5.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: This entity directly reflects Smith's detailed analysis in Book III,
    Chapter 2, where he systematically examines how various institutional arrangements
    discouraged agricultural improvement in medieval Europe. The specific constraints
    listed (primogeniture, entails, insecure tenure) are explicitly discussed by Smith
    as barriers to agricultural development.
- name: domain_placement
  value: 5.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: The "Production" domain assignment is entirely appropriate since these
    constraints directly affected agricultural productivity and the organization of
    productive activities. Agricultural development is fundamentally about production
    systems and their efficiency.
- name: vsm_relevance
  value: 3.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: This entity spans multiple VSM systems - S1 (affecting primary agricultural
    operations), S3 (regulatory/legal frameworks), and S4 (adaptation to environmental/market
    conditions) - making it somewhat diffuse from a VSM perspective. While relevant
    to organizational viability, it doesn't map cleanly to a single system function.
- name: explanatory_value
  value: 5.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: This entity provides substantial explanatory power by identifying the
    structural mechanisms that prevented agricultural improvement, helping explain
    why European agriculture remained stagnant for centuries. It illuminates the causal
    relationship between institutional arrangements and economic development rather
    than merely describing surface phenomena.
---

# Evaluation: Agricultural Development Constraints

## definition_precision — 4.0 / 5.0

The definition clearly identifies specific institutional barriers (primogeniture, entails, servile labor, etc.) and their collective effect on agricultural productivity. While comprehensive, it avoids being overly broad by focusing on concrete legal and social mechanisms rather than vague generalizations.

## source_grounding — 5.0 / 5.0

This entity directly reflects Smith's detailed analysis in Book III, Chapter 2, where he systematically examines how various institutional arrangements discouraged agricultural improvement in medieval Europe. The specific constraints listed (primogeniture, entails, insecure tenure) are explicitly discussed by Smith as barriers to agricultural development.

## domain_placement — 5.0 / 5.0

The "Production" domain assignment is entirely appropriate since these constraints directly affected agricultural productivity and the organization of productive activities. Agricultural development is fundamentally about production systems and their efficiency.

## vsm_relevance — 3.0 / 5.0

This entity spans multiple VSM systems - S1 (affecting primary agricultural operations), S3 (regulatory/legal frameworks), and S4 (adaptation to environmental/market conditions) - making it somewhat diffuse from a VSM perspective. While relevant to organizational viability, it doesn't map cleanly to a single system function.

## explanatory_value — 5.0 / 5.0

This entity provides substantial explanatory power by identifying the structural mechanisms that prevented agricultural improvement, helping explain why European agriculture remained stagnant for centuries. It illuminates the causal relationship between institutional arrangements and economic development rather than merely describing surface phenomena.
