R0041/2026-03-28/Q002 — ACH Matrix¶
Matrix¶
| H1: Explicit sycophancy requirements exist | H2: Problem not on radar | H3: Concern exists, different framing | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SRC01-E01: Georgetown CSET "caving to expectations" | + | -- | ++ |
| SRC02-E01: Mass General 100% sycophancy failure | + | -- | ++ |
| SRC03-E01: Science study cross-sector risk | + | -- | + |
| SRC04-E01: Georgetown policy "open questions" | - | - | ++ |
| SRC05-E01: FAA no sycophancy mention | -- | + | + |
| SRC06-E01: FINRA hallucination/bias not sycophancy | -- | + | ++ |
Legend:
- ++ Strongly supports
- + Supports
- -- Strongly contradicts
- - Contradicts
- N/A Not applicable to this hypothesis
Diagnosticity Analysis¶
Most Diagnostic Evidence¶
| Evidence ID | Why Diagnostic |
|---|---|
| SRC05-E01 | FAA's omission of sycophancy in its AI safety framework strongly discriminates between H1 (which predicts it would be there) and H3 (which explains why it is not) |
| SRC04-E01 | Georgetown framing sycophancy standards as "open questions" directly indicates these requirements do not yet exist |
Least Diagnostic Evidence¶
| Evidence ID | Why Non-Diagnostic |
|---|---|
| SRC03-E01 | The Science study documents the problem across sectors but does not discriminate between whether sectors have formalized requirements |
Outcome¶
Hypothesis supported: H3 — The concern exists across sectors but is framed using domain-specific terminology and has not been formalized as a discrete "sycophancy reduction" requirement.
Hypotheses eliminated: H2 — The problem is clearly on the radar of defense, healthcare, and policy researchers.
Hypotheses inconclusive: H1 — Partially supported by academic recommendations but not by formal requirements or procurement specifications.