Q002 — Self-Audit¶


Research	R0041 — Enterprise Sycophancy
Run	2026-04-01
Query	Q002

ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶

Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
Criteria defined before searching	Yes -- specific domains (defense, healthcare, financial services, aviation, critical infrastructure) defined a priori
Vocabulary variants considered	Yes -- mapped "sycophancy" to domain-specific terms (yes-man, confirmation bias, sycophantic summaries)
Criteria consistent throughout	Yes -- no drift

Notes: The vocabulary mapping in Step 1 proved essential. Healthcare sources use "sycophantic summaries" while defense uses "digital yes-men."

Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶

Rating: Some concerns

Criterion	Assessment
Multiple search strategies used	Yes -- 4 searches across defense, healthcare, financial services, and general safety
Searches designed to test each hypothesis	Yes -- searched for formal requirements (H1), emerging recognition (H2), and generic frameworks (H3)
All results dispositioned	Yes -- 40 results returned, all dispositioned
Source diversity achieved	Partial -- strong for defense and healthcare, weak for financial services and aviation

Notes: Aviation was not adequately covered by dedicated searches. Financial services returned no sycophancy-specific results despite targeted searching. The absence is itself a finding but reduces comprehensiveness.

Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶

Rating: Low risk

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

Notes: XMPRO's vendor COI was flagged and the source rated accordingly (Medium reliability, High COI risk).

Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
All hypotheses given fair hearing	Yes -- H3 received serious consideration
Contradictory evidence surfaced	Yes -- financial services absence documented
Confidence calibrated to evidence	Yes -- Medium confidence reflects gaps in aviation and financial services
Gaps acknowledged	Yes -- classified deployments, aviation, procurement RFPs

Notes: The assessment avoids overstating domain coverage beyond what evidence supports.

Domain 5: Source-Back Verification¶

Rating: Low risk

Source	Claim in Assessment	Source Actually Says	Match?
SRC01	Sycophancy "militarily deleterious" in short and long term	Kwik states sycophancy is "militarily deleterious both in the short and long term"	Yes
SRC02	AI causes "cognitive surrender"	Wharton research cited: people "rely on the AI's judgement even when they know it's wrong"	Yes
SRC04	Models endorsed harmful behavior 47% of the time	Source states "the AI models endorsing problematic user behavior 47% of the time"	Yes
SRC05	FDA has no sycophancy-specific guidance	Source confirms FDA guidance "does not mention sycophancy as a specific risk category"	Yes

Discrepancies found: 0

Corrections applied: None needed

Unresolved flags: None

Notes: All claims verified against source material.

Overall Assessment¶

Overall risk of bias: Low risk

The main limitation is coverage gaps in financial services and aviation. The assessment acknowledges these gaps and does not extrapolate beyond the evidence.

Researcher Bias Check¶

Confirmation bias risk: The researcher's belief that sycophancy is critical could lead to overstating emerging recognition. MITIGATION: The assessment clearly distinguishes between academic recognition and formal requirements, not conflating the two.
Blind spot -- classified deployments: The researcher acknowledges limited visibility into government AI deployments. Formal sycophancy requirements may exist in classified procurement. MITIGATION: Flagged as a gap rather than assumed absent.
Article series conflict: The researcher is writing about sycophancy and benefits from the topic being important in multiple domains. MITIGATION: Financial services and aviation absence is reported honestly rather than stretched to fit the narrative.