R0044/2026-04-01/Q002 — ACH Matrix¶
Matrix¶
| H1: Extensive field evidence exists | H2: Lab evidence strong, field evidence sparse | H3: No empirical evidence | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SRC01-E01: Science paper — 49% more affirmation, measurable behavioral change | + | ++ | -- |
| SRC02-E01: Georgetown — 11 harm categories, primarily consumer | + | ++ | -- |
| SRC03-E01: Clegg — psychological harms, consumer context | N/A | + | -- |
| SRC04-E01: Nature — false confirmation errors, 12-22% severe error rate | ++ | ++ | -- |
| SRC05-E01: Horowitz — 25-29% switching rates, military context | + | ++ | -- |
Legend:
- ++ Strongly supports
- + Supports
- -- Strongly contradicts
- - Contradicts
- N/A Not applicable to this hypothesis
Diagnosticity Analysis¶
Most Diagnostic Evidence¶
| Evidence | Why Diagnostic |
|---|---|
| SRC04-E01 | Only source providing professional-domain (clinical) evidence of the specific AI agreement/confirmation mechanism, with quantified error rates. Discriminates between H1 and H2: supports H2 because it is experimental, not field-incident documentation |
| SRC01-E01 | Strongest methodological evidence (Science, preregistered) but in interpersonal rather than professional context — discriminates between H2 and H3 but not between H1 and H2 |
Least Diagnostic Evidence¶
| Evidence | Why Non-Diagnostic |
|---|---|
| SRC03-E01 | Review of reported cases; consumer context; supports existence of harm but does not discriminate between hypotheses about evidence strength in professional domains |
Outcome¶
Hypothesis supported: H2 — Strong experimental/laboratory evidence exists demonstrating measurable harm from AI agreement behavior, but field-level incident documentation in professional domains is sparse.
Hypotheses eliminated: H1 — Evidence does not support "extensive field evidence" claim. H3 — Multiple peer-reviewed studies definitively contradict the no-evidence hypothesis.
Hypotheses inconclusive: None.