Q002 — Self-Audit¶


Research	R0044 — Expanded Vocabulary Research
Run	2026-03-29
Query	Q002

ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶

Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
Defined before search	Yes — focused on documented consequences, case studies, empirical studies in professional contexts
Consistent application	Yes — same criteria across all sectors

Notes: The distinction between "system sycophancy" and "automation bias" was not part of the original eligibility criteria but emerged as the most important analytical dimension.

Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶

Rating: Some concerns

Criterion	Assessment
Multiple search strategies	Yes — sycophancy harm, clinical automation bias, military overreliance
Designed to test each hypothesis	Yes — searched for both presence and absence of documented harm
All results dispositioned	Yes
Source diversity achieved	Yes — Science, JAMA, ICRC, OpenAI, ACM

Notes: Engineering and financial services sectors yielded no sector-specific case studies. This is an absence finding. Military case studies may exist in classified sources.

Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
All sources scored consistently	Yes
Evidence typed consistently	Yes
ACH matrix applied	Yes
Diagnosticity analysis performed	Yes

Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
All hypotheses given fair hearing	Yes — the distinction between H1 and H3 was maintained throughout
Contradictory evidence surfaced	Yes — SRC01/SRC02 contradict H3, noted explicitly
Confidence calibrated to evidence	Yes
Gaps acknowledged	Yes — engineering, finance, classified military

Overall Assessment¶

Overall risk of bias: Low risk

The research process was thorough across available sectors. The key analytical contribution — distinguishing between automation bias (human over-reliance) and sycophancy (system agreeableness) as harm mechanisms — emerged from the evidence rather than from prior assumptions.

Researcher Bias Check¶

Framing bias: The query assumes harm exists, which could bias toward confirmation. The evidence independently supports this conclusion, but the analysis maintains the distinction between proven and projected harm.
Availability bias: The OpenAI incident is highly publicized and may receive disproportionate weight. It was weighted appropriately given its direct relevance as the only documented system-side sycophancy incident.