R0043/2026-04-01/Q003/H3¶
Statement¶
The broader AI terminology gap has been recognized, but the specific sycophancy vocabulary gap is a smaller, not-yet-prioritized subset of the larger problem. Existing efforts focus on high-level governance concepts, not specific behavioral risks.
Status¶
Current: Supported (best fit)
Supporting Evidence¶
| Evidence | Summary |
|---|---|
| SRC04-E01 | IAPP glossary covers 100+ terms but excludes sycophancy and related behavioral safety terms |
| SRC01-E01 | Trilateral's proposed minimal glossary focuses on high-level concepts (explainability, robustness, fairness) not behavioral risks |
| SRC02-E01 | CSIRO framework focuses on evaluation methodology terms, not behavioral AI risks |
Contradicting Evidence¶
| Evidence | Summary |
|---|---|
| SRC03-E01 | Huwyler's threat taxonomy is operationally detailed (53 sub-threats) but still does not include sycophancy |
Reasoning¶
The evidence consistently shows that the broader AI terminology gap is well-recognized and actively being addressed. However, current efforts focus on governance-level concepts (fairness, transparency, explainability) and technical security threats (adversarial attacks, prompt injection), not on specific behavioral risks like sycophancy. The sycophancy vocabulary gap falls into the space between high-level governance and low-level security — behavioral model properties that affect safety but do not fit neatly into either category.
Relationship to Other Hypotheses¶
H3 is the most accurate characterization. It subsumes H1 (gap recognized) while adding the qualification that sycophancy-specific attention is lacking. It explains why the gap persists despite recognition of the broader problem.