R0042/2026-03-28/Q002 — ACH Matrix¶
Matrix¶
| H1: Behavioral customization is documented | H2: Not documented, limited to traditional | H3: General customization documented, sycophancy not | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SRC01-E01: MIT sycophancy-personalization research | -- | + | ++ |
| SRC02-E01: Premise governance framework | -- | + | ++ |
| SRC03-E01: Persona vectors capability | - | + | ++ |
| SRC04-E01: TrueFoundry "output behavior" | - | - | ++ |
Legend:
- ++ Strongly supports
- + Supports
- -- Strongly contradicts
- - Contradicts
- N/A Not applicable to this hypothesis
Diagnosticity Analysis¶
Most Diagnostic Evidence¶
| Evidence ID | Why Diagnostic |
|---|---|
| SRC04-E01 | The closest evidence to H1 (behavioral control language in a vendor source) still falls short of naming sycophancy — this is highly diagnostic because if behavioral customization were a real enterprise motivation, it would appear here |
Least Diagnostic Evidence¶
| Evidence ID | Why Non-Diagnostic |
|---|---|
| SRC03-E01 | Persona vectors demonstrate technical capability but say nothing about enterprise demand — consistent with all three hypotheses |
Outcome¶
Hypothesis supported: H3 — General customization is documented but sycophancy-specific control is not. The word "customization" in enterprise sources means something different from what sycophancy researchers mean by "behavioral control."
Hypotheses eliminated: H1 — No evidence supports behavioral customization as a documented enterprise motivation.
Hypotheses inconclusive: H2 — Partially supported but slightly overstates the constraint by implying the conversation is limited to only three topics.