R0043/2026-03-28/Q001 — Self-Audit¶
ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶
Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶
Rating: Low risk
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Evidence criteria defined before searching | Yes — terminology and definitions from each of the 8 specified domains |
| Criteria consistent throughout research | Yes — no criteria shift after results |
| Criteria appropriate for the question | Yes — terminology mapping requires identifying terms, definitions, and domain usage |
Notes: Eligibility criteria were straightforward for this question: any term used in any specified domain to describe the phenomenon of AI prioritizing agreement over accuracy.
Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶
Rating: Some concerns
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Multiple search strategies used | Yes — 6 searches across different domain perspectives |
| Searches designed to test each hypothesis | Yes — searched for both existing vocabulary (H1) and evidence of gaps (H3) |
| All results dispositioned | Yes — 60 results returned, all dispositioned (16 selected, 44 rejected) |
| Source diversity achieved | Yes — legislation, government frameworks, academic papers, industry publications |
Notes: Concern: Financial services and enterprise software evaluation had the thinnest search results. Additional searches targeting OCC/Fed guidance and enterprise AI evaluation frameworks might have surfaced additional domain-specific terminology. The search was comprehensive but not exhaustive for all 8 domains.
Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶
Rating: Low risk
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| All sources scored using same framework | Yes — GRADE reliability/relevance + bias domains |
| Evidence typed consistently | Yes — Factual, Analytical, Reported used consistently |
| ACH matrix applied | Yes — 10 evidence items × 3 hypotheses |
| Diagnosticity analysis performed | Yes — most and least diagnostic evidence identified |
Notes: Consistent scoring applied. The legislation sources (EU AI Act) received highest reliability due to their authoritative nature, which is appropriate.
Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶
Rating: Low risk
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| All hypotheses given fair hearing | Yes — H1 received substantial supporting evidence before being qualified |
| Contradictory evidence surfaced | Yes — SRC10 contradicts the premise that mapping existing vocabulary is sufficient |
| Confidence calibrated to evidence | Yes — High confidence supported by 10 sources with consistent findings |
| Gaps acknowledged | Yes — financial services, ISO/IEC 42001, and non-English terminology gaps noted |
Notes: The synthesis could be critiqued for potentially overemphasizing the human-side/system-side divide. Some evidence (DoD's calibrated trust framework) does bridge this divide partially. However, the overall pattern is clear across 8+ sources.
Overall Assessment¶
Overall risk of bias: Low risk
The research process was systematic and the findings are well-supported. The main limitation is search depth in financial services and enterprise evaluation, which could contain relevant terminology in regulatory guidance not surfaced by web search.
Researcher Bias Check¶
- Framing bias: The query itself frames this as a "vocabulary mapping" exercise, which presupposes that different vocabularies exist. However, the research also actively searched for evidence that no gap exists (H2) and found strong evidence against it. The framing bias was mitigated by the hypothesis structure.
- Anthropomorphism bias: The term "sycophancy" is itself an anthropomorphic projection. The research identified this via SRC10 but did not allow it to undermine the practical finding that regulated industries lack system-behavior terminology.