R0043/2026-03-28/Q003/H2¶
Statement¶
No literature identifies the vocabulary gap between AI safety and regulated-industry terminology as a problem.
Status¶
Current: Eliminated
Multiple sources explicitly identify the terminology gap. Trilateral Research published "How to Fix the AI Terminology Gap." The Standardized Threat Taxonomy paper identifies a "Tower of Babel problem." The MIT AI Risk Repository exists specifically to address fragmented risk vocabulary.
Supporting Evidence¶
No evidence supports H2.
Contradicting Evidence¶
| Evidence | Summary |
|---|---|
| SRC01-E01 | Entire article dedicated to the AI terminology gap problem |
| SRC02-E01 | "Tower of Babel problem" explicitly named |
| SRC03-E01 | 1,600+ risk formulations compiled to address vocabulary fragmentation |
Reasoning¶
H2 is conclusively eliminated. The vocabulary gap is a recognized problem with multiple independent efforts addressing it.
Relationship to Other Hypotheses¶
H2's elimination confirms that the gap is recognized (supporting H1 or H3). The remaining question is whether sycophancy is specifically addressed.