Q001 — Self-Audit¶


Research	R0041 — Enterprise Sycophancy
Run	2026-03-28
Query	Q001

ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶

Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
Evidence criteria defined before searching	Yes — sought vendor announcements, API docs, research publications, and model specs
Criteria applied consistently	Yes — same standard applied to all vendors
Criteria appropriate to the question	Yes — enterprise products would be documented in these source types

Notes: Eligibility criteria were appropriate. Corporate blogs, technical specifications, academic papers, and vendor comparison guides were all relevant source types.

Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶

Rating: Some concerns

Criterion	Assessment
Multiple search strategies used	Yes — 6 searches targeting different vendor and topic angles
Searches designed to test each hypothesis	Yes — S04 specifically tested for enterprise products (H1), S01-S03 tested vendor engagement (H2 falsification), S05-S06 tested implementation approach (H3)
All results dispositioned	Yes — 60 results across 6 searches, all dispositioned
Source diversity achieved	Partial — strong on Anthropic and OpenAI, weaker on Google and Microsoft

Notes: The Google and Microsoft evidence is thinner than desired. Google's relative lack of public sycophancy discourse could reflect either genuine inattention or simply a different communication strategy. Microsoft's Azure content safety documentation was searched but does not address sycophancy specifically.

Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
All sources scored using same framework	Yes — GRADE reliability/relevance + 6-domain bias assessment
Evidence typed consistently	Yes — Factual, Reported, Statistical applied consistently
ACH matrix applied	Yes — all evidence mapped to all three hypotheses
Diagnosticity analysis performed	Yes — most and least diagnostic evidence identified

Notes: Scoring was consistent across sources. Corporate self-reports (Anthropic, OpenAI) received COI flags uniformly.

Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
All hypotheses given fair hearing	Yes — H2 was tested and eliminated on evidence, not assumed
Contradictory evidence surfaced	Yes — the null result from S04 was prominently featured as diagnostic
Confidence calibrated to evidence	Yes — medium confidence reflects the information gaps about Google and Microsoft
Gaps acknowledged	Yes — four specific gaps documented

Notes: The distinction between H1 and H3 is subtle and could be argued either way. The analysis explicitly acknowledges that Anthropic's investments (Petri, constitutional principles) push toward H1 territory. The conclusion favoring H3 rests primarily on the absence of customer-facing configuration options.

Overall Assessment¶

Overall risk of bias: Low risk

The research process followed the methodology consistently. The main limitation is coverage asymmetry — more evidence was available for Anthropic and OpenAI than for Google and Microsoft. This reflects the actual state of public discourse rather than a search bias.

Researcher Bias Check¶

No researcher profile provided: Cannot check for declared biases.
Embedded assumption risk: The query assumes enterprise anti-sycophancy products might exist. This assumption was explicitly tested (S04) and found unsupported by evidence.
Vendor coverage bias: More evidence was found for Anthropic than other vendors, which could lead to anchoring on Anthropic's approach as representative. The analysis notes where Google and Microsoft evidence is thin.