---
entity_slug: economic_system_failure_indicator
evaluator: null
evaluated_at: '2026-02-23T05:16:03.597445'
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 failure
    indicators as "signs that suggest things aren't working well." It lacks specificity
    about what constitutes these indicators or how they would be measured or recognized
    in practice.
- name: source_grounding
  value: 2.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: The entity claims to derive from "Book IV, Chapter 0" which doesn't exist,
    and the definition appears to be an abstract inference rather than grounded in
    Smith's actual text. While Smith does critique various economic systems, this
    particular framing of "failure indicators" as a distinct concept is not clearly
    present in the source.
- name: domain_placement
  value: 3.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: '"General Theory" is appropriate given the abstract nature of the concept,
    though the entity is so broadly defined that it could arguably fit in multiple
    domains. The placement isn''t wrong but reflects the entity''s lack of specificity.'
- name: vsm_relevance
  value: 4.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: This entity maps well to VSM System 3 (internal regulation/audit) and
    potentially System 4 (intelligence/environmental adaptation), as failure indicators
    would be crucial for monitoring system performance and detecting when adaptation
    is needed. The concept has clear cybernetic relevance for system viability.
- name: explanatory_value
  value: 2.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: The entity merely names a surface phenomenon without illuminating underlying
    mechanisms or providing actionable insight. It doesn't explain what causes these
    indicators, how they relate to specific economic structures, or what they reveal
    about system dynamics.
---

# Evaluation: Economic System Failure Indicator

## definition_precision — 2.0 / 5.0

The definition is quite vague and circular, essentially defining failure indicators as "signs that suggest things aren't working well." It lacks specificity about what constitutes these indicators or how they would be measured or recognized in practice.

## source_grounding — 2.0 / 5.0

The entity claims to derive from "Book IV, Chapter 0" which doesn't exist, and the definition appears to be an abstract inference rather than grounded in Smith's actual text. While Smith does critique various economic systems, this particular framing of "failure indicators" as a distinct concept is not clearly present in the source.

## domain_placement — 3.0 / 5.0

"General Theory" is appropriate given the abstract nature of the concept, though the entity is so broadly defined that it could arguably fit in multiple domains. The placement isn't wrong but reflects the entity's lack of specificity.

## vsm_relevance — 4.0 / 5.0

This entity maps well to VSM System 3 (internal regulation/audit) and potentially System 4 (intelligence/environmental adaptation), as failure indicators would be crucial for monitoring system performance and detecting when adaptation is needed. The concept has clear cybernetic relevance for system viability.

## explanatory_value — 2.0 / 5.0

The entity merely names a surface phenomenon without illuminating underlying mechanisms or providing actionable insight. It doesn't explain what causes these indicators, how they relate to specific economic structures, or what they reveal about system dynamics.
