Q001 — Self-Audit¶


Research	R0042 — Private AI enterprise motivations and sycophancy
Run	2026-03-28
Query	Q001

ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶

Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶

Rating: Pass

Criterion	Assessment
Eligibility defined before search	Yes — sources needed to list enterprise motivations for private AI deployment
Criteria stable during research	Yes — no criteria shift after initial results
Sources excluded with rationale	Yes — 10 results rejected with documented rationale

Notes: Eligibility criteria were clear and consistently applied.

Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶

Rating: Some concerns

Criterion	Assessment
Multiple search strategies used	Yes — two distinct searches targeting industry surveys and vendor perspectives
Searches designed to test each hypothesis	Partially — searches were designed to find motivation lists, not specifically to falsify hypotheses
All results dispositioned	Yes — 20 results across 2 searches, all dispositioned
Source diversity achieved	Some concerns — 6 of 8 sources are vendor sources

Notes: The search strategy was adequate but produced a vendor-heavy evidence base. The inability to access McKinsey content and the absence of Gartner/Forrester/KPMG specific data on private AI motivations is a limitation. Two searches returned 20 total results, 10 selected, 10 rejected.

Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶

Rating: Pass

Criterion	Assessment
All sources scored using same framework	Yes — all 8 sources scored with identical dimensions
Evidence typed consistently	Yes — all evidence typed as Reported
ACH matrix applied	Yes — all evidence mapped to all 3 hypotheses
Diagnosticity analysis performed	Yes — most and least diagnostic evidence identified

Notes: Consistent evaluation across all sources.

Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶

Rating: Pass

Criterion	Assessment
All hypotheses given fair hearing	Yes — H2 was evaluated fully despite early evidence against it
Contradictory evidence surfaced	Yes — Deloitte's absence of ranked list was surfaced as evidence against H1
Confidence calibrated to evidence	Yes — Medium confidence reflects vendor-heavy source base
Gaps acknowledged	Yes — four specific gaps documented

Notes: The synthesis appropriately weighted the Deloitte source higher than vendor sources despite having less specific content.

Overall Assessment¶

Overall risk of bias: Low risk

The main limitation is source diversity — the evidence base is vendor-heavy. However, the consistency of findings across vendors with different product lines provides reasonable confidence that the motivations reflect genuine enterprise concerns rather than coordinated marketing.

Researcher Bias Check¶

Confirmation bias risk: The researcher is investigating sycophancy as an article topic, which could create a tendency to find sycophancy-related motivations where none exist. Mitigated by clearly noting the absence of sycophancy in every source.
Availability bias: Vendor sources are easier to find than enterprise customer perspectives, which may inflate the apparent importance of vendor-emphasized motivations.