Q003 — Self-Audit¶


Research	R0044 — Expanded Vocabulary Research
Run	2026-03-29
Query	Q003

ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶

Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
Defined before search	Yes — looking for explicit connections between automation bias and sycophancy vocabularies
Consistent application	Yes

Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶

Rating: Some concerns

Criterion	Assessment
Multiple search strategies	Yes — searched both vocabulary communities and cross-references
Key source accessible	No — CSET PDF could not be extracted
Source diversity	Yes — human factors, AI safety, national security

Notes: The CSET paper inaccessibility is a significant gap. A human researcher could obtain and read the PDF.

Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
All sources scored consistently	Yes
ACH matrix applied	Yes
Negative evidence valued	Yes — systematic review omission treated as finding

Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
All hypotheses given fair hearing	Yes
Gaps acknowledged	Yes — CSET paper prominently flagged

Overall Assessment¶

Overall risk of bias: Some concerns

The primary concern is the inaccessibility of the CSET paper, which is the most likely candidate for answering the query affirmatively. This creates asymmetric evidence availability — negative evidence (reviews that omit sycophancy) is more accessible than potentially positive evidence.

Researcher Bias Check¶

Confirmation bias: The query's framing suggests the author believes the vocabulary gap is a problem. This could bias toward overstating any bridging evidence found. Mitigated by noting the systematic review's absence of sycophancy as counter-evidence.