R0042/2026-04-01/Q003 — Self-Audit¶
ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶
Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶
Rating: Low risk
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Criteria defined before searching | Yes — specifically sought enterprise case studies with anti-sycophancy as stated design goal |
| Criteria consistent throughout | Yes — maintained the distinction between model developer and enterprise deployer throughout |
| Scope appropriate | Yes — searched academic papers, vendor blogs, policy analysis, and AI safety research |
Notes: The key eligibility criterion — distinguishing between AI developers working on sycophancy vs enterprises deploying private AI to address it — was defined before searching and applied consistently.
Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶
Rating: Low risk
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Multiple search strategies used | Yes — three searches with different angles (enterprise case studies, technical approaches, evaluation benchmarks) |
| Searches designed to test each hypothesis | Yes — S01 specifically targeted H1 (enterprise cases), S02 tested H3 (existence of any anti-sycophancy work), S03 targeted the most documented program (Anthropic) |
| All results dispositioned | Yes — 30 results returned, all dispositioned |
| Source diversity achieved | Yes — vendor (Anthropic), AI research (SparkCo), policy (Georgetown) |
Notes: The search was comprehensive enough to confidently assert the absence of enterprise case studies. The volume of results about developer-side anti-sycophancy work confirms the search terms were effective — they found what exists while confirming what does not.
Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶
Rating: Low risk
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| All sources scored using same framework | Yes |
| Evidence typed consistently | Yes — Factual, Reported, Analytical |
| ACH matrix applied | Yes |
| Diagnosticity analysis performed | Yes |
Notes: SparkCo received appropriately lower reliability ratings due to unverifiable case studies.
Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶
Rating: Low risk
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| All hypotheses given fair hearing | Yes — H1 was actively sought despite early signals it would not be supported |
| Contradictory evidence surfaced | Yes — SparkCo case studies were given consideration as potential H1 support despite reliability concerns |
| Confidence calibrated to evidence | Yes — Medium-High reflects strong search but acknowledges potential blind spots |
| Gaps acknowledged | Yes — classified sectors, private documents, vocabulary alternatives documented |
Notes: The assessment resists the temptation to over-interpret the absence as either "enterprises don't care about sycophancy" or "this is a massive untapped opportunity."
Domain 5: Source-Back Verification¶
Rating: Low risk
| Source | Claim in Assessment | Source Actually Says | Match? |
|---|---|---|---|
| SRC01 | 70-85% lower sycophancy in Claude 4.5 vs Opus 4.1 | "scored 70-85% lower than Opus 4.1 on both sycophancy and encouragement of user delusion" | Yes |
| SRC01 | Course-correction rates: Opus 10%, Sonnet 16.5%, Haiku 37% | "Opus 4.5 (10%), Sonnet 4.5 (16.5%), and Haiku 4.5 (37%)" | Yes |
| SRC02 | Cognition Dynamics: 72% reduction | "achieved a 72% reduction in sycophantic responses" | Yes |
| SRC02 | AI Innovate: 67% reduction | "achieving a 67% reduction in sycophantic behavior" | Yes |
Discrepancies found: 0
Corrections applied: None needed
Unresolved flags: None
Notes: All specific metrics verified against source material.
Overall Assessment¶
Overall risk of bias: Low risk
The research was conducted fairly with active searching for enterprise case studies that would support H1. The absence finding is based on comprehensive search rather than narrow investigation.
Researcher Bias Check¶
- Narrative bias: The researcher's article series could benefit from either finding an enterprise case study (validates the thesis) or documenting the absence (identifies a gap/opportunity). Both outcomes serve the narrative, which reduces the risk of one-directional bias.
- Availability bias: Anthropic's well-publicized anti-sycophancy work is salient and could crowd out attention to less-visible enterprise efforts. Mitigated by searching specifically for enterprise-focused terms and non-Anthropic sources.