---
entity_slug: agricultural_security_gradient
evaluator: null
evaluated_at: '2026-02-23T00:31:13.255564'
overall_score: 4.6
scores:
- name: definition_precision
  value: 4.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: The definition clearly establishes a spectrum concept with specific endpoints
    (villeinage vs. English freehold) and identifies the causal mechanism linking
    legal protection to agricultural improvement. The concept is distinct and measurable,
    though it could be slightly more precise about what constitutes "varying degrees"
    in the middle of the spectrum.
- name: source_grounding
  value: 5.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: This entity is directly grounded in Smith's analysis in Book III, Chapter
    2, where he explicitly discusses how different tenure systems and their associated
    legal protections created different incentives for agricultural improvement. The
    comparison between English freehold security and other less secure forms of tenure
    is a central theme in Smith's historical analysis.
- name: domain_placement
  value: 5.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: The "Regulation" domain is perfectly appropriate since this entity fundamentally
    concerns legal frameworks governing property rights and tenure arrangements. The
    concept sits at the intersection of legal institutions and economic incentives,
    making regulation the natural categorical home.
- name: vsm_relevance
  value: 4.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: This entity maps well to S3 (internal regulation) as it represents the
    regulatory framework that governs agricultural operations, and also connects to
    S4 (intelligence/adaptation) since different security levels enable or constrain
    adaptive improvements. The gradient concept captures how regulatory systems can
    be more or less conducive to operational effectiveness.
- name: explanatory_value
  value: 5.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: This entity provides significant explanatory power by identifying the
    causal mechanism between institutional arrangements and economic outcomes. It
    illuminates why some agricultural systems developed more rapidly than others,
    moving beyond surface description to reveal the underlying structural relationship
    between legal security and investment incentives.
---

# Evaluation: Agricultural Security Gradient

## definition_precision — 4.0 / 5.0

The definition clearly establishes a spectrum concept with specific endpoints (villeinage vs. English freehold) and identifies the causal mechanism linking legal protection to agricultural improvement. The concept is distinct and measurable, though it could be slightly more precise about what constitutes "varying degrees" in the middle of the spectrum.

## source_grounding — 5.0 / 5.0

This entity is directly grounded in Smith's analysis in Book III, Chapter 2, where he explicitly discusses how different tenure systems and their associated legal protections created different incentives for agricultural improvement. The comparison between English freehold security and other less secure forms of tenure is a central theme in Smith's historical analysis.

## domain_placement — 5.0 / 5.0

The "Regulation" domain is perfectly appropriate since this entity fundamentally concerns legal frameworks governing property rights and tenure arrangements. The concept sits at the intersection of legal institutions and economic incentives, making regulation the natural categorical home.

## vsm_relevance — 4.0 / 5.0

This entity maps well to S3 (internal regulation) as it represents the regulatory framework that governs agricultural operations, and also connects to S4 (intelligence/adaptation) since different security levels enable or constrain adaptive improvements. The gradient concept captures how regulatory systems can be more or less conducive to operational effectiveness.

## explanatory_value — 5.0 / 5.0

This entity provides significant explanatory power by identifying the causal mechanism between institutional arrangements and economic outcomes. It illuminates why some agricultural systems developed more rapidly than others, moving beyond surface description to reveal the underlying structural relationship between legal security and investment incentives.
