R0044/2026-04-01/Q004 — Self-Audit¶
ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶
Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶
Rating: Low risk
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Criteria defined before searching | Yes — sought CaTE publications and assessed system-side vs. human-side focus |
| Criteria applied consistently | Yes |
| Criteria shift detected | No |
Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶
Rating: Some concerns
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Multiple search strategies used | Yes — center overview + specific guidebook search |
| Searches designed to test each hypothesis | Yes |
| All results dispositioned | Yes — 20 results returned, all dispositioned |
| Source diversity achieved | Limited — 3 sources, all from CaTE's institutional ecosystem |
Notes: Concern: CaTE guidebook PDF was not extractable, limiting detailed content analysis. Source diversity is limited because CaTE is a single center with few publications.
Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶
Rating: Low risk
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| All sources scored using same framework | 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 — H1 (system-side focus) was actively searched for |
| Contradictory evidence surfaced | N/A — all sources converge |
| Confidence calibrated to evidence | Yes — Medium reflects inaccessible guidebook full text |
| Gaps acknowledged | Yes — guidebook full text and internal working papers |
Domain 5: Source-Back Verification¶
Rating: Low risk
| Source | Claim in Assessment | Source Actually Says | Match? |
|---|---|---|---|
| SRC02 | CaTE does not use sycophancy vocabulary | Confirmed: vocabulary is calibrated trust, human-machine teaming | Yes |
| SRC03 | $20M funding, Kim Sablon oversight | Directly stated in article | Yes |
| SRC01 | Published April 2025, Mellinger et al. | Confirmed from SEI library listing | Yes |
Discrepancies found: 1 minor
Corrections applied: Query referred to "Calibrated AI Trust and Expectations" but CaTE stands for "Calibrated Trust Measurement and Evaluation." Corrected in query definition.
Unresolved flags: None
Overall Assessment¶
Overall risk of bias: Low risk
Researcher Bias Check¶
- Institutional bias: All sources are from CaTE's institutional ecosystem (SEI, DoD, defense news). No external critique of CaTE's approach was found. This limits the assessment's ability to identify weaknesses in CaTE's scope.
- Framing bias: The query's characterization of CaTE as having "the most sophisticated vocabulary" was tested rather than assumed, and tempered in the assessment.