R0043/2026-03-28/Q003 — ACH Matrix¶
Matrix¶
| H1: Gap recognized and addressed | H2: Gap not recognized | H3: Gap recognized but not for sycophancy | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SRC01-E01: Trilateral "AI terminology gap" article | ++ | -- | + |
| SRC02-E01: 53-threat taxonomy omits sycophancy | + | -- | ++ |
| SRC03-E01: MIT 1,600 risk formulations; sycophancy absent | + | -- | ++ |
| SRC04-E01: Fundamental vocabulary insufficiency argument | + | -- | + |
| SRC05-E01: AIR 2024; overreliance underspecified | + | -- | ++ |
Legend:
- ++ Strongly supports
- + Supports
- -- Strongly contradicts
- - Contradicts
- N/A Not applicable to this hypothesis
Diagnosticity Analysis¶
Most Diagnostic Evidence¶
| Evidence ID | Why Diagnostic |
|---|---|
| SRC02-E01 | A 53-threat taxonomy explicitly designed to bridge technical and regulatory domains that omits sycophancy is the most diagnostic: it proves bridging efforts exist (contra H2) while proving sycophancy is not addressed (supporting H3 over H1) |
Least Diagnostic Evidence¶
| Evidence ID | Why Non-Diagnostic |
|---|---|
| SRC04-E01 | The neologisms paper is orthogonal to the H1/H3 distinction — it argues both existing bridging and non-bridging are insufficient |
Outcome¶
Hypothesis supported: H3 — The general AI terminology gap is recognized and actively addressed; the specific sycophancy vocabulary gap is not.
Hypotheses eliminated: H2 — Multiple independent sources confirm the general gap is recognized.
Hypotheses inconclusive: H1 — Partially supported for the general gap; not supported for sycophancy specifically.