R0044/2026-03-29/Q003 — ACH Matrix¶
Matrix¶
| H1: Explicit bridging exists | H2: No bridging exists | H3: Partial/emerging bridging | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SRC01-E01: CSET combines both terms in title | ++ | -- | + |
| SRC02-E01: ISQ mentions both incidentally | + | - | ++ |
| SRC03-E01: Systematic review omits sycophancy | - | ++ | + |
| SRC04-E01: Sycophancy paper connects to confirmation bias not automation bias | - | + | ++ |
Legend:
- ++ Strongly supports
- + Supports
- -- Strongly contradicts
- - Contradicts
- N/A Not applicable to this hypothesis
Diagnosticity Analysis¶
Most Diagnostic Evidence¶
| Evidence ID | Why Diagnostic |
|---|---|
| SRC03-E01 | The systematic review's omission of sycophancy is the most diagnostic evidence — if bridging existed systematically, a 35-study review would reflect it |
| SRC01-E01 | The CSET paper is highly diagnostic for H1 — if its full text confirms systematic bridging, H1 would be supported |
Least Diagnostic Evidence¶
| Evidence ID | Why Non-Diagnostic |
|---|---|
| SRC02-E01 | Incidental co-reference supports all three hypotheses to some degree |
Outcome¶
Hypothesis supported: H3 — Partial/emerging bridging exists. The CSET paper and ISQ paper show awareness of both vocabularies, but no systematic mapping was found.
Hypotheses eliminated: H2 — The existence of at least two papers referencing both vocabulary sets eliminates complete siloing.
Hypotheses inconclusive: H1 — Cannot be fully evaluated without CSET paper full text. Partially supported by its existence, but the systematic review's omission of sycophancy argues against widespread bridging.