Q002 — Self-Audit¶


Research	R0042 — Private AI Motivations
Run	2026-04-01
Query	Q002

ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶

Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
Criteria defined before searching	Yes — sought evidence connecting behavioral customization (specifically sycophancy) to private AI deployment motivations
Criteria consistent throughout	Yes — same standard applied to all sources
Scope appropriate	Yes — covered enterprise AI deployment, sovereign AI, and AI safety literature

Notes: The query's framing as a binary (behavioral customization OR security only) was surfaced as an embedded assumption and tested as such.

Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
Multiple search strategies used	Yes — three searches targeting different aspects: behavioral customization, sycophancy as enterprise concern, sovereign AI customization
Searches designed to test each hypothesis	Yes — S01 targeted H1 (sycophancy as motivation), S02 targeted H2 (enterprise sycophancy concerns), S03 targeted H3 (customization beyond security)
All results dispositioned	Yes — 30 results returned, all dispositioned
Source diversity achieved	Yes — vendor guides, enterprise journalism, AI research, policy analysis

Notes: Comprehensive search across both the enterprise deployment and AI safety domains, which is precisely where the answer lies (at the gap between them).

Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
All sources scored using same framework	Yes — same GRADE/bias framework applied to all 4 sources
Evidence typed consistently	Yes — Analytical and Reported types used consistently
ACH matrix applied	Yes — all evidence mapped to all 3 hypotheses
Diagnosticity analysis performed	Yes

Notes: Vendor sources received appropriately higher COI ratings.

Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
All hypotheses given fair hearing	Yes — H1 was actively searched for despite researcher bias toward wanting to find sycophancy as motivation
Contradictory evidence surfaced	Yes — the absence of sycophancy in enterprise deployment literature is surfaced as a key finding
Confidence calibrated to evidence	Yes — Medium-High reflects strong evidence for the gap
Gaps acknowledged	Yes — possibility that enterprises discuss sycophancy using different terminology

Notes: The "two conversations" finding emerged from the evidence rather than being predetermined.

Domain 5: Source-Back Verification¶

Rating: Low risk

Source	Claim in Assessment	Source Actually Says	Match?
SRC01	Behavioral governance covers transparency, fairness, auditability	"transparency, fairness, and auditability"	Yes
SRC02	Solutions are technical, not deployment-architectural	Synthetic data, diverse training, monitoring, user education — no deployment changes	Yes
SRC03	Customization means domain accuracy and brand voice	"tailor to specifics of industry, enterprise, and teams" with "highest accuracy"	Yes

Discrepancies found: 0

Corrections applied: None needed

Unresolved flags: None

Notes: All characterizations verified against source material.

Overall Assessment¶

Overall risk of bias: Low risk

The research process was conducted fairly across all hypotheses. The key finding — that sycophancy and enterprise deployment are discussed in separate conversations — emerged from the evidence rather than being imposed on it.

Researcher Bias Check¶

Confirmation bias risk: The researcher is writing about sycophancy as a private AI motivation, creating incentive to find evidence that sycophancy IS a deployment driver. The evidence does not support this, and the assessment reports this honestly.
Anchoring bias: The query itself frames behavioral customization as potentially important, which could anchor the research toward over-emphasizing the small amount of customization evidence found. Mitigated by clearly distinguishing between "customization as documented" (domain accuracy) and "customization as queried" (sycophancy control).