Q001 — Self-Audit¶


Research	R0043 — Sycophancy Vocabulary
Run	2026-04-01
Query	Q001

ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶

Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
Criteria defined before searching	Yes — each of the 8 named domains defined the scope; terms needed to describe AI agreement-seeking behavior
Criteria remained stable during research	Yes — no criteria shift after seeing results
Criteria applied consistently	Yes — same test (does the term describe AI prioritizing agreement over accuracy?) applied across all domains

Notes: The query itself defined the eligibility criteria by naming 8 domains. This made scope control straightforward.

Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶

Rating: Some concerns

Criterion	Assessment
Multiple search strategies used	Yes — 5 distinct searches across domains
Searches designed to test each hypothesis	Partially — searches were designed by domain rather than by hypothesis
All results dispositioned	Yes — all 75 results across 5 searches dispositioned (13 selected, 62 rejected)
Source diversity achieved	Yes — academic, government, trade, journalism sources

Notes: The search comprehensiveness concern is that some domains (academic integrity, enterprise software) received less dedicated search attention than others (AI safety, defense). The financial services domain was searched but produced fewer domain-specific terminology results than expected.

Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
All sources scored using same framework	Yes — all 9 sources received identical scorecard treatment
Evidence typed consistently	Yes — Analytical, Reported, Statistical types applied
ACH matrix applied	Yes — all evidence mapped to all 3 hypotheses
Diagnosticity analysis performed	Yes

Notes: Scoring was consistent. The lower reliability rating for SRC09 (technology journalism) was appropriate given its publication type.

Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
All hypotheses given fair hearing	Yes — H3 (terms are different phenomena) received strong support and was not dismissed
Contradictory evidence surfaced	Yes — SRC06 contradicts the expectation of LLM acquiescence bias
Confidence calibrated to evidence	Yes — Medium confidence reflects strong coverage in some domains, thin coverage in others
Gaps acknowledged	Yes — PDF inaccessibility, missing legal domain, non-English terminology noted

Notes: The open-ended nature of this query (vocabulary mapping) reduces the risk of synthesis bias because the output is primarily descriptive rather than evaluative.

Domain 5: Source-Back Verification¶

Rating: Low risk

For each source cited in the assessment, re-read the source and verify that the assessment accurately represents what the source says.

Source	Claim in Assessment	Source Actually Says	Match?
SRC01	Defines 3 behavioral categories	Self-contradiction, opinion-responsive adaptation, agreement despite falsity	Yes
SRC02	Regressive/progressive taxonomy	Confirms both types with definitions	Yes
SRC03	Defense uses automation bias/complacency	Source explicitly defines both terms in military context	Yes
SRC05	Formally distinguishes overreliance/automation bias/sycophancy	Paper defines all three as categorically distinct	Yes
SRC06	LLMs show opposite of acquiescence bias	Paper found "no" bias across 37,975 variations	Yes
SRC08	Aviation terms "not nuanced enough" for AI	Exact quote confirmed	Yes
SRC09	Identifies vocabulary gap	Article explicitly states sycophancy is a research term without standardized cross-domain nomenclature	Yes

Discrepancies found: 0

Corrections applied: None needed

Unresolved flags: None

Notes: All source attributions verified. The vocabulary map table in the assessment aggregates findings across sources accurately.

Overall Assessment¶

Overall risk of bias: Low risk

The open-ended vocabulary mapping nature of Q001 limits bias risk. The primary analytical risk is overemphasizing the vocabulary gap (aligning with the researcher's anti-sycophancy stance), but the evidence genuinely supports the finding that vocabulary is fragmented. The inclusion of H3 (terms describe different phenomena) as a supported hypothesis provides appropriate nuance.

Researcher Bias Check¶

Anti-sycophancy bias: The researcher's declared stance could lead to framing vocabulary fragmentation as more dangerous than it is. Mitigated by presenting the finding as descriptive rather than evaluative — the map exists; whether the gap is a problem is deferred to Q003.
Publication incentive: The researcher is publishing on this topic, creating incentive to present the vocabulary gap as a novel finding. In fact, several sources (SRC09, SRC05) have already identified aspects of this gap, so the finding is confirmed rather than novel.
Confirmation bias risk: The researcher expected to find a vocabulary gap and did find one. However, the evidence for fragmentation is strong and independently sourced. The counter-evidence (SRC06) was included and discussed rather than suppressed.