Q001 — Self-Audit¶


Research	R0044 — Expanded Vocabulary Research
Run	2026-03-29
Query	Q001

ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶

Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
Evidence types defined before search	Yes — focused on published standards, directives, procurement specifications, regulatory frameworks
Criteria consistent throughout	Yes — same criteria applied across all four sectors
Scope boundaries maintained	Yes — focused on system-side vs human-side distinction as specified

Notes: Eligibility criteria were well-defined by the query itself, which specified both the vocabulary to use and the sectors to examine.

Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶

Rating: Some concerns

Criterion	Assessment
Multiple search strategies used	Yes — 5 distinct searches across 4 sectors plus cross-cutting standards
Searches designed to test each hypothesis	Yes — searched for both existence and absence of system-side requirements
All results dispositioned	Yes — all returned results categorized as selected or rejected
Source diversity achieved	Yes — government standards, legislation, regulatory guidance, academic research

Notes: Some concern because several PDFs (NIST AI 600-1, OMB M-26-04, CaTE Guidebook) could not be fully extracted, meaning specific provisions within those documents may have been missed. The analysis relies partly on secondary descriptions of these documents.

Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
All sources scored using same framework	Yes — same reliability/relevance/bias framework applied to all 6 sources
Evidence typed consistently	Yes — all evidence extracts typed using the standard categories
ACH matrix applied	Yes — all evidence mapped against all 3 hypotheses
Diagnosticity analysis performed	Yes — most and least diagnostic evidence identified

Notes: Evaluation was consistent across sources. Government sources received higher reliability ratings, which is appropriate given the query's focus on regulatory requirements.

Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
All hypotheses given fair hearing	Yes — searched for evidence supporting and contradicting each
Contradictory evidence surfaced	Yes — FINRA's human-focused approach presented as evidence for H2
Confidence calibrated to evidence	Yes — assessment acknowledges that requirements exist but are indirect
Gaps acknowledged	Yes — PDF extraction failures and missing implementing standards noted

Notes: The synthesis fairly represents the range of evidence. The conclusion (H3 supported) is consistent with the evidence pattern.

Overall Assessment¶

Overall risk of bias: Low risk

The research process was methodical across four sectors with standardized evaluation criteria. The primary limitation is the inability to fully extract some PDF documents, which may have contained more specific system-side behavioral requirements than the summaries indicate.

Researcher Bias Check¶

Confirmation bias risk: The query's framing ("not just human operator behavior") implies an expectation that system-side requirements should be found. This could bias toward over-interpreting ambiguous requirements as system-side constraints. Mitigated by maintaining the distinction between "design for oversight" and "constrain output behavior."
Availability bias risk: The EU AI Act and NIST AI 600-1 are well-known frameworks that may receive disproportionate attention. Mitigated by also searching sector-specific sources (FAA, FINRA, DoD).