R0041/2026-03-28/Q002/H2¶
Statement¶
No enterprise or government AI deployment has used "sycophancy" or equivalent concepts as a formal requirement or design goal. The problem is not yet on the radar of procurement and regulatory bodies.
Status¶
Current: Eliminated
While no formal procurement requirement using the term "sycophancy" was found, the underlying concern is clearly on the radar of multiple sectors. The Pentagon's GenAI.mil deployment raised safety concerns from experts. Georgetown CSET's analysis explicitly describes the sycophancy dynamic in military decision-making. Healthcare researchers have documented the problem empirically and called for structural changes. FINRA acknowledges hallucination and bias risks in AI governance.
Supporting Evidence¶
No evidence directly supports H2.
Contradicting Evidence¶
| Evidence | Summary |
|---|---|
| SRC01-E01 | Georgetown CSET explicitly analyzes AI deference to user expectations in military context |
| SRC02-E01 | Healthcare study demonstrates sycophancy as an empirical risk requiring mitigation |
| SRC03-E01 | Science study documents sycophancy as dangerous across professional contexts |
| SRC04-E01 | Georgetown Tech Policy Institute identifies sycophancy harms across sectors |
Reasoning¶
H2 is eliminated because the evidence shows awareness of sycophancy-equivalent risks across defense, healthcare, and financial services. The awareness has not yet crystallized into formal procurement requirements, but the problem is acknowledged in academic analysis, clinical research, and policy briefs targeting these sectors.
Relationship to Other Hypotheses¶
H2's elimination redirects the analysis toward H1 (explicit requirements) and H3 (different framing). The evidence more strongly supports H3.