R0042/2026-03-28/Q002 — Self-Audit¶
ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶
Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶
Rating: Pass
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Eligibility defined before search | Yes — sources needed to connect behavioral customization/sycophancy to enterprise private AI motivations |
| Criteria stable during research | Yes — no criteria shift |
| Sources excluded with rationale | Yes — 16 results rejected with rationale |
Notes: Criteria were clear and stable throughout.
Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶
Rating: Pass
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Multiple search strategies used | Yes — behavioral customization search and enterprise fine-tuning search |
| Searches designed to test each hypothesis | Yes — searches specifically targeted the claimed connection |
| All results dispositioned | Yes — 20 results across 2 searches |
| Source diversity achieved | Yes — academic, vendor, and AI safety research represented |
Notes: The search strategy was well-designed for this query. The absence finding is strengthened by the targeted search approach.
Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶
Rating: Pass
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| All sources scored using same framework | Yes |
| Evidence typed consistently | Yes |
| ACH matrix applied | Yes |
| Diagnosticity analysis performed | Yes |
Notes: Consistent evaluation across all sources.
Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶
Rating: Pass
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| All hypotheses given fair hearing | Yes — H1 was actively searched for, not just dismissed |
| Contradictory evidence surfaced | Yes — TrueFoundry's behavioral language was highlighted as partial counter-evidence |
| Confidence calibrated to evidence | Yes — High confidence matches the comprehensive absence |
| Gaps acknowledged | Yes — three specific gaps documented |
Notes: The key risk was premature dismissal of H1. This was mitigated by the TrueFoundry evidence being surfaced and analyzed despite not supporting H1.
Overall Assessment¶
Overall risk of bias: Low risk
The main risk was that the researcher's article topic (sycophancy in enterprise AI) could drive confirmation bias toward finding connections that do not exist. The methodology's requirement for specific evidence protected against this.
Researcher Bias Check¶
- Confirmation bias risk (inverted): The researcher may want to find that behavioral customization IS a motivation (to support their article thesis). The absence finding may be disappointing but is well-supported by evidence.
- Anchoring bias: The query frames the question as a binary (documented or limited to three topics). The H3 hypothesis correctly identifies the middle ground.