Q001 — Self-Audit¶


Research	R0024 — Sycophancy and Addiction
Run	2026-03-25
Query	Q001

ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶

Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶

Rating: Pass

Criterion	Assessment
Evidence criteria defined before searching	Yes — defined scope as published research, policy analysis, or expert commentary on the business model tension
Criteria applied consistently	Yes — all sources evaluated against the same relevance standard
Criteria did not shift after seeing results	Pass — criteria remained consistent throughout

Notes: The eligibility criteria were straightforward for this query: published analysis addressing the vendor incentive question.

Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶

Rating: Pass

Criterion	Assessment
Multiple search strategies used	Yes — two searches with different terms targeting different facets
Searches designed to test each hypothesis	Yes — searched for both evidence of analysis and for absence of analysis
All results dispositioned	Yes — 20 results total, all dispositioned (4 selected, 16 rejected)
Source diversity achieved	Yes — policy (Georgetown, Brookings), journalism (TechCrunch), academic (Stanford/CMU)

Notes: 2 searches, 20 results dispositioned, 4 sources selected from diverse institutional backgrounds.

Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶

Rating: Pass

Criterion	Assessment
All sources scored using same framework	Yes — reliability, relevance, and 6-domain bias assessment applied to all
Evidence typed consistently	Yes — Analytical, Reported, Statistical types applied consistently
ACH matrix applied	Yes — all evidence evaluated against all 3 hypotheses
Diagnosticity analysis performed	Yes — most and least diagnostic evidence identified

Notes: Consistent application of the evaluation framework across all sources.

Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶

Rating: Pass

Criterion	Assessment
All hypotheses given fair hearing	Yes — H2 was tested and eliminated based on evidence, H3 was acknowledged as partially valid
Contradictory evidence surfaced	No contradictory evidence was found; this absence was noted rather than ignored
Confidence calibrated to evidence	Yes — "Very likely" rather than "Almost certain" due to the recency of the field and lack of internal vendor data
Gaps acknowledged	Yes — three specific gaps identified with impact assessment

Notes: The assessment was calibrated below the maximum confidence level despite strong convergent evidence, reflecting the genuine limitation that no study has directly observed internal vendor decision-making.

Overall Assessment¶

Overall risk of bias: Low risk

The research process was straightforward for this query. The evidence converged strongly, which could indicate confirmation bias, but the convergence comes from genuinely independent sources with different methodologies. The embedded assumption in the query (that sycophancy increases engagement) was explicitly tested through the Cheng et al. study rather than accepted as given.

Researcher Bias Check¶

Confirmation bias risk: Low. The query's embedded assumption was tested rather than accepted. The evidence independently confirmed the assumption.
Availability bias risk: Low. Sources were diverse across institutional types (policy, academic, journalism).
Anchoring bias risk: Low. The assessment was calibrated to "Very likely" rather than "Almost certain" despite strong evidence, reflecting genuine gaps in the evidence base.