Q003 — Self-Audit¶


Research	R0024 — Sycophancy and Addiction
Run	2026-03-25
Query	Q003

ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶

Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶

Rating: Pass

Criterion	Assessment
Evidence criteria defined before searching	Yes — peer-reviewed academic research on dopamine/addiction mechanisms in AI chatbots
Criteria applied consistently	Yes
Criteria did not shift after seeing results	Pass

Notes: Criteria were clear. The distinction between direct neuroscience measurement and theoretical inference was identified during analysis, not post-hoc.

Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶

Rating: Pass

Criterion	Assessment
Multiple search strategies used	Yes — one broad search, one targeted retrieval
Searches designed to test each hypothesis	Yes — searched for both evidence of research and absence
All results dispositioned	Yes — 12 results total, all dispositioned
Source diversity achieved	Partial — SRC01 and SRC02 share overlapping authorship

Notes: 2 searches, 12 results dispositioned, 4 sources selected. The overlapping authorship is noted but the studies address different research questions with different methodologies.

Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶

Rating: Pass

Criterion	Assessment
All sources scored using same framework	Yes
Evidence typed consistently	Yes
ACH matrix applied	Yes
Diagnosticity analysis performed	Yes

Notes: Consistent evaluation. The distinction between peer-reviewed (SRC01) and expert commentary (SRC04) was reflected in reliability ratings.

Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶

Rating: Pass

Criterion	Assessment
All hypotheses given fair hearing	Yes — H3 was supported over H1 based on methodological limitations
Contradictory evidence surfaced	No contradictory evidence found; the absence of direct dopamine measurement was noted as a limitation
Confidence calibrated to evidence	Yes — "Likely" with Medium confidence, reflecting real methodological gaps
Gaps acknowledged	Yes — four specific gaps identified

Notes: The assessment was intentionally conservative, favoring H3 (nuanced) over H1 (strong) to reflect the genuine gap between behavioral observation and neuroscience measurement.

Overall Assessment¶

Overall risk of bias: Low risk

The assessment was calibrated conservatively, acknowledging the gap between what is claimed (dopamine-driven) and what is measured (behavioral patterns). The risk of inflating the evidence base was actively mitigated.

Researcher Bias Check¶

Anchoring bias risk: Some concern. The query presupposes "dopamine-driven" mechanisms, which could anchor the assessment toward confirming a neuroscience framework. Mitigated by explicitly noting that dopamine claims are inferred, not measured.
Availability bias risk: Some concern. The overlapping authorship (Shen appearing in both SRC01 and SRC02) could overweight one research group's perspective.