Q003 — Self-Audit¶


Research	R0042 — Private AI enterprise motivations and sycophancy
Run	2026-03-28
Query	Q003

ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶

Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶

Rating: Pass

Criterion	Assessment
Eligibility defined before search	Yes — sources needed to document enterprise/research institution private AI with anti-sycophancy as explicit design goal
Criteria stable during research	Yes — criteria remained consistent
Sources excluded with rationale	Yes — 45 results rejected with rationale

Notes: The high bar ("explicit design goal") was appropriate and consistently applied.

Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶

Rating: Pass

Criterion	Assessment
Multiple search strategies used	Yes — 5 distinct searches targeting anti-sycophancy case studies, enterprise truthfulness, and consistency training
Searches designed to test each hypothesis	Yes — searches specifically designed to find enterprise deployments (H1)
All results dispositioned	Yes — 50 results across 5 searches
Source diversity achieved	Yes — model providers, academic research, and enterprise case studies searched

Notes: Comprehensive search strategy. The absence finding is robust because multiple independent search strategies all returned the same negative result.

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. The distinction between model provider and enterprise customer was applied uniformly.

Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶

Rating: Pass

Criterion	Assessment
All hypotheses given fair hearing	Yes — H1 was aggressively searched for
Contradictory evidence surfaced	Yes — Anthropic's Constitutional AI was the strongest potential counter-evidence and was fully analyzed
Confidence calibrated to evidence	Yes — High confidence matches comprehensive absence
Gaps acknowledged	Yes — internal enterprise documentation, CIO interviews, and conference proceedings gaps noted

Notes: The strongest potential evidence for H1 (Anthropic Constitutional AI) was given full analysis, and the specific reason it does not support H1 (provider vs customer design goal) was clearly articulated.

Overall Assessment¶

Overall risk of bias: Low risk

The research methodology was well-suited to this query. The main risk was premature acceptance of Anthropic's Constitutional AI as evidence for H1, which was mitigated by clearly distinguishing between model provider and enterprise customer design goals.

Researcher Bias Check¶

Confirmation bias risk: Researcher may want enterprise anti-sycophancy examples to exist (for article). The absence finding may be disappointing but is well-supported.
Definition bias risk: "Private AI system" could be interpreted broadly to include model providers. This was mitigated by maintaining the distinction between provider-level and customer-level design goals throughout.