---
entity_slug: commonalty
evaluator: null
evaluated_at: '2026-02-23T05:01:00.816594'
overall_score: 4.4
scores:
- name: definition_precision
  value: 4.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: The definition clearly distinguishes commonalty as a specific legal-political
    status granting corporate identity and governance rights to townspeople, rather
    than just referring to "common people" generally. It precisely captures the institutional
    dimension of collective legal personality and unified action capability.
- name: source_grounding
  value: 4.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: Smith does discuss how towns were granted corporate privileges and self-governance
    rights in Book III, Chapter 3, making this concept well-grounded in the source
    material. The entity accurately reflects Smith's analysis of urban institutional
    development and legal frameworks.
- name: domain_placement
  value: 5.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: The "Regulation" domain is perfectly appropriate since commonalty represents
    the institutional and legal framework through which towns regulated their internal
    affairs and commercial activities. This is fundamentally about governance structures
    and regulatory mechanisms.
- name: vsm_relevance
  value: 5.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: This entity maps clearly to S3 (internal regulation) as it describes
    the institutional structure for collective governance and regulation within towns.
    It also has elements of S5 (identity/policy) as it establishes the legal identity
    and decision-making authority of the urban community.
- name: explanatory_value
  value: 4.0
  max_value: 5.0
  rationale: The concept illuminates an important structural mechanism in Smith's
    analysis - how towns developed the institutional capacity for collective economic
    action and self-regulation. It explains the legal-political foundation that enabled
    urban commercial development and autonomy.
---

# Evaluation: Commonalty

## definition_precision — 4.0 / 5.0

The definition clearly distinguishes commonalty as a specific legal-political status granting corporate identity and governance rights to townspeople, rather than just referring to "common people" generally. It precisely captures the institutional dimension of collective legal personality and unified action capability.

## source_grounding — 4.0 / 5.0

Smith does discuss how towns were granted corporate privileges and self-governance rights in Book III, Chapter 3, making this concept well-grounded in the source material. The entity accurately reflects Smith's analysis of urban institutional development and legal frameworks.

## domain_placement — 5.0 / 5.0

The "Regulation" domain is perfectly appropriate since commonalty represents the institutional and legal framework through which towns regulated their internal affairs and commercial activities. This is fundamentally about governance structures and regulatory mechanisms.

## vsm_relevance — 5.0 / 5.0

This entity maps clearly to S3 (internal regulation) as it describes the institutional structure for collective governance and regulation within towns. It also has elements of S5 (identity/policy) as it establishes the legal identity and decision-making authority of the urban community.

## explanatory_value — 4.0 / 5.0

The concept illuminates an important structural mechanism in Smith's analysis - how towns developed the institutional capacity for collective economic action and self-regulation. It explains the legal-political foundation that enabled urban commercial development and autonomy.
