2026-02-11 01:17:58 +01:00
|
|
|
|
# VSM Mapping Schema v1.0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schema definition for entity-to-VSM concept mapping documents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Required Sections
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Economic Entity Reference
|
|
|
|
|
|
The name and identifier of the economic entity being mapped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Must correspond to an existing entity in the entities collection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### VSM Concept Reference
|
|
|
|
|
|
The name and identifier of the VSM concept being mapped to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Must correspond to an existing concept in the concepts collection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Mapping Rationale
|
|
|
|
|
|
A detailed explanation of why this economic entity maps to this VSM concept.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Should reference specific properties of both the entity and the concept
|
|
|
|
|
|
that justify the mapping (minimum 30 words).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Mapping Strength
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of:
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **Strong**: Direct structural or functional correspondence
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **Moderate**: Clear conceptual parallel with some differences
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **Weak**: Loose analogy or partial overlap
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Optional Sections
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Counter-arguments
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reasons why this mapping might be contested or why the entity
|
|
|
|
|
|
might not fit the VSM concept perfectly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Alternative Mappings
|
|
|
|
|
|
Other VSM concepts this entity could plausibly map to,
|
|
|
|
|
|
with brief rationale for each alternative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2026-02-23 06:04:09 +01:00
|
|
|
|
## Quality Metrics
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Used by the `evaluate-entity` prompt template when assessing mapping quality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each dimension is scored 1–5, where 1 = very poor and 5 = excellent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Rationale Rigour (1-5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is the mapping justified with reference to Beer's VSM definitions, not just
|
|
|
|
|
|
surface-level analogy? A score of 5 means the rationale cites specific VSM
|
|
|
|
|
|
properties (e.g., "S2 attenuates variety between S1 units") and shows how
|
|
|
|
|
|
the economic entity fulfils that role. A score of 1 means the rationale is
|
|
|
|
|
|
a loose metaphor with no structural grounding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Strength Calibration (1-5)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is the declared Mapping Strength (Strong, Moderate, Weak) consistent with
|
|
|
|
|
|
the rationale given? A score of 5 means the declared strength matches the
|
|
|
|
|
|
depth of correspondence described. A score of 1 means the strength is
|
|
|
|
|
|
overclaimed (e.g., "Strong" for a tangential analogy) or underclaimed
|
|
|
|
|
|
(e.g., "Weak" for a direct structural match).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2026-02-11 01:17:58 +01:00
|
|
|
|
## Validation Rules
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. The document MUST contain an H1 heading in the format "Entity Name -> VSM Concept Name".
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. The document MUST contain all four required sections: Economic Entity Reference, VSM Concept Reference, Mapping Rationale, Mapping Strength.
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. The Mapping Strength MUST be one of: Strong, Moderate, Weak.
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. The document MUST reference both an economic entity and a VSM concept.
|
