R0043/2026-04-01/Q003/H1¶
Statement¶
The vocabulary gap between AI safety and regulated-industry terminology has been explicitly identified as a problem, and there are active efforts to create shared taxonomies.
Status¶
Current: Supported
Supporting Evidence¶
| Evidence | Summary |
|---|---|
| SRC01-E01 | Trilateral Research (2025) explicitly diagnoses the gap and proposes solutions |
| SRC02-E01 | CSIRO/UNSW harmonised terminology framework for AI evaluation |
| SRC03-E01 | Huwyler's threat taxonomy bridges technical and business language |
Contradicting Evidence¶
| Evidence | Summary |
|---|---|
| SRC04-E01 | IAPP glossary (100+ terms) does not include sycophancy, suggesting the specific sycophancy vocabulary gap is not yet recognized as a priority |
Reasoning¶
Multiple independent sources confirm the AI terminology gap is recognized as a problem. However, the specific sycophancy vocabulary gap (as opposed to the broader AI governance terminology gap) has received less attention. Most efforts focus on harmonizing high-level concepts (fairness, transparency, robustness) rather than specific behavioral risks like sycophancy.
Relationship to Other Hypotheses¶
H1 is supported at the general level but qualified by H3 — the sycophancy-specific gap is a subset of the broader recognized problem. H2 is eliminated.