Q003 — Self-Audit¶


Research	R0043 — Sycophancy Vocabulary
Run	2026-03-28
Query	Q003

ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶

Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
Evidence criteria defined before searching	Yes — published literature on terminology gaps and bridging efforts
Criteria consistent throughout research	Yes
Criteria appropriate for the question	Yes

Notes: Clear criteria focused on published research and organizational initiatives.

Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶

Rating: Some concerns

Criterion	Assessment
Multiple search strategies used	Yes — 2 searches (general bridging and sycophancy-specific)
Searches designed to test each hypothesis	Yes
All results dispositioned	Yes — 30 results, all dispositioned
Source diversity achieved	Partial — primarily academic/policy sources

Notes: Concern: Professional society standardization efforts (IEEE, ACM, HL7, ARINC) and OECD work may not be surfaced by web search. Additional targeted searches could strengthen the finding.

Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
All sources scored using same framework	Yes
Evidence typed consistently	Yes
ACH matrix applied	Yes
Diagnosticity analysis performed	Yes

Notes: Consistent scoring.

Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
All hypotheses given fair hearing	Yes
Contradictory evidence surfaced	Yes — SRC04 contradicts the premise of taxonomy-based solutions
Confidence calibrated to evidence	Yes — Medium confidence acknowledges gaps
Gaps acknowledged	Yes

Notes: Fair synthesis; the null finding for sycophancy-specific bridging is properly documented.

Overall Assessment¶

Overall risk of bias: Low risk

The research process was sound. The main risk is that the null finding (no sycophancy-specific bridging) could reflect search limitations rather than true absence. Medium confidence acknowledges this.

Researcher Bias Check¶

Novelty bias: There is an incentive to find that Q001's observation is "novel" (not previously articulated). The research actively searched for prior articulation of this specific gap and found none — but absence of evidence from web search is weaker than absence of evidence from systematic literature review.