R0043/2026-04-01/Q002 — Query Definition¶
Query as Received¶
Using the vocabulary identified in Q1, search for enterprise requirements, procurement specifications, regulatory guidance, or deployment standards that address the sycophancy phenomenon under its domain-specific names. Focus on regulated industries (defense, healthcare, finance, aviation) where agreeable-but-wrong AI output could cause harm.
Query as Clarified¶
This query asks whether the domain-specific terminology identified in Q001 appears in formal requirements documents — regulations, procurement specs, deployment standards. The key distinction is between (a) regulations that directly name sycophancy or its equivalents as a risk, and (b) regulations that address the phenomenon indirectly through broader requirements like "accuracy," "human oversight," or "independent validation." Both types are relevant but have different implications for the vocabulary gap.
Embedded assumption: that regulated industries have formal requirements addressing this phenomenon. This assumption is testable.
BLUF¶
No regulatory framework or procurement standard directly addresses "sycophancy" by name. However, several frameworks address the phenomenon indirectly through domain-specific requirements: the EU AI Act mandates awareness of "automation bias" in high-risk systems; NIST AI 600-1 addresses "confabulation" and "information integrity"; SR 11-7 requires "effective challenge" and independent validation of model outputs in banking; the FDA requires human factors evaluation of AI clinical decision support. These indirect requirements provide partial coverage but leave a gap: they address the human response to AI outputs (automation bias, overreliance) or output quality (confabulation, hallucination) without naming the model behavior (sycophancy) that produces agreeable-but-wrong results.
Scope¶
- Domain: Regulatory and procurement standards across defense, healthcare, finance, aviation
- Timeframe: Current as of April 2026
- Testability: Verified by searching regulatory documents for domain-specific terminology and assessing whether they address the sycophancy phenomenon
Assessment Summary¶
Probability: N/A (open-ended query)
Confidence: Medium
Hypothesis outcome: Open-ended query. The answer is that indirect coverage exists through domain-specific mechanisms, but no direct regulation of sycophancy-as-model-behavior was found.
[Full assessment in assessment.md.]
Status¶
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Date created | 2026-04-01 |
| Date completed | 2026-04-01 |
| Researcher profile | Phillip Moore |
| Prompt version | Unified Research Methodology v1 |
| Revisit by | 2026-10-01 |
| Revisit trigger | EU AI Act implementing rules published; NIST updates AI 600-1; FDA finalizes AI/ML device guidance; new SR 11-7 supplement for AI models |