R0041/2026-04-01/Q002/H3¶
Statement¶
Sycophancy is not recognized as a distinct risk in enterprise or government AI deployments; existing concerns are addressed through other frameworks (model validation, human-in-the-loop, general safety requirements).
Status¶
Current: Eliminated
Supporting Evidence¶
| Evidence | Summary |
|---|---|
| SRC05-E01 | FDA guidance does not name sycophancy specifically; existing device exemptions may cover the concern indirectly |
| SRC06-E01 | Financial services AI governance frameworks address model risk generically without naming sycophancy |
Contradicting Evidence¶
| Evidence | Summary |
|---|---|
| SRC01-E01 | Peer-reviewed paper specifically names and analyzes sycophancy in military AI |
| SRC03-E01 | Georgetown Law specifically identifies sycophancy as a distinct category of AI harm |
| SRC04-E01 | Science publication treats sycophancy as a measurable, distinct phenomenon |
Reasoning¶
The peer-reviewed literature now treats sycophancy as a distinct, named phenomenon with domain-specific implications. While many regulatory frameworks have not yet caught up, the academic and policy discourse has clearly separated sycophancy from generic model risk. H3 is eliminated.
Relationship to Other Hypotheses¶
H3 is the null hypothesis. Its elimination confirms that sycophancy recognition is real and growing, supporting H2.