R0043/2026-04-01/Q002 — Self-Audit¶
ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶
Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶
Rating: Low risk
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Criteria defined before searching | Yes — searched for formal requirements addressing sycophancy under domain-specific names |
| Criteria remained stable | Yes |
| Criteria applied consistently | Yes — same test across all 4 regulated industries |
Notes: Clear eligibility: formal regulatory/procurement documents that address the sycophancy phenomenon.
Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶
Rating: Some concerns
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Multiple search strategies used | Yes — regulatory texts, procurement standards, policy analysis |
| Searches designed to test each hypothesis | Yes — searched for both existing requirements and confirmed absences |
| All results dispositioned | Yes — 50 results across 2 searches |
| Source diversity achieved | Yes — EU, US federal, IEEE, academic |
Notes: The concern is that DOD-specific and aviation-specific AI deployment standards were not fully investigated. The procurement search (S02) returned no relevant results, which is itself a finding but limits the evidence base for enterprise procurement practices.
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 evaluation across all 6 sources.
Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶
Rating: Low risk
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| All hypotheses given fair hearing | Yes — H3 emerged as the most nuanced answer |
| Contradictory evidence surfaced | Yes — existing indirect coverage documented |
| Confidence calibrated to evidence | Yes — Medium reflects both confirmed gap and uncertain completeness |
| Gaps acknowledged | Yes — DOD, aviation, procurement RFPs noted as missing |
Notes: The synthesis appropriately balances the finding of indirect coverage with the finding of direct sycophancy gap.
Domain 5: Source-Back Verification¶
Rating: Low risk
| Source | Claim in Assessment | Source Actually Says | Match? |
|---|---|---|---|
| SRC01 | EU AI Act names "automation bias" | Article 14 text confirmed | Yes |
| SRC02 | NIST addresses confabulation not sycophancy | NIST 600-1 risk categories confirmed | Yes |
| SRC03 | SR 11-7 requires effective challenge | SR 11-7 text confirmed | Yes |
| SRC06 | No explicit sycophancy regulation | Georgetown analysis confirmed | Yes |
Discrepancies found: 0
Corrections applied: None needed
Unresolved flags: None
Notes: All regulatory citations verified against primary or authoritative secondary sources.
Overall Assessment¶
Overall risk of bias: Low risk
The assessment balances the regulatory gap finding with documentation of existing indirect coverage. The four-mechanism framework (human cognition, output quality, governance, human factors) provides a structured analysis rather than a simple "gap exists" narrative.
Researcher Bias Check¶
- Anti-sycophancy bias: Could lead to overstating the gap. Mitigated by documenting four distinct indirect coverage mechanisms.
- Publication incentive: The "regulatory gap" narrative is more publishable than "existing coverage may be sufficient." The assessment includes the caveat that indirect coverage may be adequate in practice.
- Blind spot: The researcher's engineering lens may undervalue the governance approach (SR 11-7 effective challenge) as a mitigation. Financial services' process-based approach may be more effective than direct model regulation.