---
entity_slug: economic_system_performance_indicator
evaluator: null
evaluated_at: '2026-02-23T05:19:34.778455'
overall_score: 2.6
scores:
- name: definition_precision
  value: 2.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: The definition is quite vague and circular, essentially defining performance
    indicators as "measures and metrics used to assess effectiveness" without specifying
    what those measures actually are. It conflates the concept of measurement with
    the specific indicators Smith might have had in mind.
- name: source_grounding
  value: 2.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: While Smith does discuss the objectives of political economy (providing
    subsistence and revenue), there's little evidence he systematically developed
    specific "performance indicators" as modern economic theory would understand them.
    The entity appears to impose contemporary analytical frameworks onto Smith's more
    descriptive approach.
- name: domain_placement
  value: 3.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: '"General Theory" is appropriate since this relates to Smith''s broad
    framework for political economy, though it could arguably fit better in a methodology
    or measurement domain. The placement is reasonable but not obviously optimal.'
- name: vsm_relevance
  value: 4.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: This entity maps well to S3 (internal regulation/audit) as performance
    indicators are fundamentally about monitoring and evaluating system effectiveness.
    It could also relate to S4 (intelligence) insofar as indicators provide information
    for adaptive responses.
- name: explanatory_value
  value: 2.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: The entity doesn't illuminate specific mechanisms or structural relations
    in Smith's work, but rather creates a meta-category that could apply to any economic
    system. It lacks the specificity needed to explain how Smith's particular insights
    about wealth creation actually function.
---

# Evaluation: Economic System Performance Indicator

## definition_precision — 2.0 / 5.0

The definition is quite vague and circular, essentially defining performance indicators as "measures and metrics used to assess effectiveness" without specifying what those measures actually are. It conflates the concept of measurement with the specific indicators Smith might have had in mind.

## source_grounding — 2.0 / 5.0

While Smith does discuss the objectives of political economy (providing subsistence and revenue), there's little evidence he systematically developed specific "performance indicators" as modern economic theory would understand them. The entity appears to impose contemporary analytical frameworks onto Smith's more descriptive approach.

## domain_placement — 3.0 / 5.0

"General Theory" is appropriate since this relates to Smith's broad framework for political economy, though it could arguably fit better in a methodology or measurement domain. The placement is reasonable but not obviously optimal.

## vsm_relevance — 4.0 / 5.0

This entity maps well to S3 (internal regulation/audit) as performance indicators are fundamentally about monitoring and evaluating system effectiveness. It could also relate to S4 (intelligence) insofar as indicators provide information for adaptive responses.

## explanatory_value — 2.0 / 5.0

The entity doesn't illuminate specific mechanisms or structural relations in Smith's work, but rather creates a meta-category that could apply to any economic system. It lacks the specificity needed to explain how Smith's particular insights about wealth creation actually function.
