R0042/2026-03-28/Q002/H2¶
Statement¶
Behavioral customization is not a documented motivation for enterprise private AI deployment. The enterprise conversation is limited to data sovereignty, security, compliance, and cost.
Status¶
Current: Partially supported
The core claim is correct — sycophancy control is not documented as an enterprise motivation. However, "limited to data sovereignty, security, and compliance" slightly understates the actual scope. The enterprise conversation also includes cost predictability, IP protection, vendor lock-in, and general (non-behavioral) customization.
Supporting Evidence¶
| Evidence | Summary |
|---|---|
| SRC01-E01 | Sycophancy research is disconnected from enterprise deployment decisions |
| SRC02-E01 | Anti-sycophancy work proposes software architecture, not private infrastructure |
| SRC03-E01 | Technical capability exists but is not an enterprise deployment driver |
Contradicting Evidence¶
| Evidence | Summary |
|---|---|
| SRC04-E01 | "Enforce strict output behavior" language slightly expands the conversation beyond the traditional triad |
Reasoning¶
H2 captures the central finding accurately — behavioral customization and sycophancy control are not part of the enterprise private AI conversation. However, H2 slightly overstates the constraint by implying the conversation is "limited to" only three topics. H3 provides a more precise characterization.
Relationship to Other Hypotheses¶
H2 is partially supported but less precise than H3. The distinction is important: the enterprise conversation is broader than data sovereignty/security/compliance (it includes cost, IP, vendor lock-in) but narrower than H1 claims (it does not include behavioral customization).