---
entity_slug: ejectment_action
evaluator: null
evaluated_at: '2026-02-23T05:22:50.401351'
overall_score: 4.6
scores:
- name: definition_precision
  value: 4.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: The definition clearly distinguishes ejectment action from ordinary damages
    by specifying it allows recovery of actual possession, not just compensation.
    It precisely identifies the key feature that made this legal remedy distinctive
    and economically significant.
- 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 English legal protections for tenants, including
    remedies against wrongful ouster, contributed to agricultural improvement. The
    contrast with continental practices is also textually supported.
- name: domain_placement
  value: 5.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: '"Regulation" is the correct domain placement, as this represents a specific
    legal-institutional mechanism that shapes economic behavior. It''s neither a pure
    market phenomenon nor a broad policy concept, but rather a concrete regulatory
    tool.'
- name: vsm_relevance
  value: 4.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: This maps well to S3 (internal regulation) as it represents an institutional
    mechanism that maintains system stability by protecting property rights and encouraging
    investment. It could also relate to S2 as it prevents oscillations between investment
    and disinvestment caused by tenure insecurity.
- name: explanatory_value
  value: 5.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: This entity illuminates a specific causal mechanism in Smith's argument
    about why English agriculture outperformed continental systems - the legal security
    that encouraged tenant investment in improvements. It explains how institutional
    design translates into economic outcomes rather than merely naming a surface phenomenon.
---

# Evaluation: Ejectment Action

## definition_precision — 4.0 / 5.0

The definition clearly distinguishes ejectment action from ordinary damages by specifying it allows recovery of actual possession, not just compensation. It precisely identifies the key feature that made this legal remedy distinctive and economically significant.

## 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 English legal protections for tenants, including remedies against wrongful ouster, contributed to agricultural improvement. The contrast with continental practices is also textually supported.

## domain_placement — 5.0 / 5.0

"Regulation" is the correct domain placement, as this represents a specific legal-institutional mechanism that shapes economic behavior. It's neither a pure market phenomenon nor a broad policy concept, but rather a concrete regulatory tool.

## vsm_relevance — 4.0 / 5.0

This maps well to S3 (internal regulation) as it represents an institutional mechanism that maintains system stability by protecting property rights and encouraging investment. It could also relate to S2 as it prevents oscillations between investment and disinvestment caused by tenure insecurity.

## explanatory_value — 5.0 / 5.0

This entity illuminates a specific causal mechanism in Smith's argument about why English agriculture outperformed continental systems - the legal security that encouraged tenant investment in improvements. It explains how institutional design translates into economic outcomes rather than merely naming a surface phenomenon.
