---
entity_slug: feudal_anarchy
evaluator: null
evaluated_at: '2026-02-23T05:28:07.442163'
overall_score: 4.0
scores:
- name: definition_precision
  value: 4.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: The definition clearly identifies feudal anarchy as a specific historical
    period with distinct characteristics (absence of centralized authority, local
    lords exercising multiple powers). It avoids circularity and captures a concrete
    political-economic arrangement rather than a vague concept.
- name: source_grounding
  value: 5.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: This entity is directly grounded in Smith's historical analysis in Book
    III, Chapter 2, where he explicitly discusses the post-Roman period and its impact
    on property arrangements. The connection to primogeniture and entails as defensive
    necessities is faithful to Smith's argument.
- name: domain_placement
  value: 4.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: '"General Theory" is appropriate as this represents Smith''s broader
    theoretical framework about institutional evolution and property systems. It could
    potentially fit in a more specific historical or institutional domain, but General
    Theory captures its role in Smith''s overarching analysis.'
- name: vsm_relevance
  value: 2.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: This historical condition is largely VSM-neutral, describing a breakdown
    of systemic organization rather than mapping to specific VSM functions. It represents
    the absence or failure of viable system structures rather than their operation.
- name: explanatory_value
  value: 5.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: This entity provides crucial explanatory power for understanding why
    certain property institutions (primogeniture, entails) emerged and persisted.
    It illuminates the structural relationship between political disorder and economic
    arrangements in Smith's historical analysis.
---

# Evaluation: Feudal Anarchy

## definition_precision — 4.0 / 5.0

The definition clearly identifies feudal anarchy as a specific historical period with distinct characteristics (absence of centralized authority, local lords exercising multiple powers). It avoids circularity and captures a concrete political-economic arrangement rather than a vague concept.

## source_grounding — 5.0 / 5.0

This entity is directly grounded in Smith's historical analysis in Book III, Chapter 2, where he explicitly discusses the post-Roman period and its impact on property arrangements. The connection to primogeniture and entails as defensive necessities is faithful to Smith's argument.

## domain_placement — 4.0 / 5.0

"General Theory" is appropriate as this represents Smith's broader theoretical framework about institutional evolution and property systems. It could potentially fit in a more specific historical or institutional domain, but General Theory captures its role in Smith's overarching analysis.

## vsm_relevance — 2.0 / 5.0

This historical condition is largely VSM-neutral, describing a breakdown of systemic organization rather than mapping to specific VSM functions. It represents the absence or failure of viable system structures rather than their operation.

## explanatory_value — 5.0 / 5.0

This entity provides crucial explanatory power for understanding why certain property institutions (primogeniture, entails) emerged and persisted. It illuminates the structural relationship between political disorder and economic arrangements in Smith's historical analysis.
