Q003 — Hallucination Training — Self-Audit¶
Domain 1 — Eligibility Criteria¶
| Criterion | Rating |
|---|---|
| Were inclusion/exclusion criteria pre-specified? | Low risk |
| Were criteria applied consistently? | Low risk |
| Were borderline cases documented? | Low risk |
Notes: Sources selected based on relevance to hallucination characterization in training materials and research. Both training content and academic research included to enable gap analysis.
Domain 2 — Search Comprehensiveness¶
| Criterion | Rating |
|---|---|
| Were multiple sources/databases searched? | Low risk |
| Were search terms comprehensive? | Low risk |
| Were non-English sources considered? | High risk |
Notes: Searches covered hallucination training content, hallucination-sycophancy connection, and hallucination taxonomy. Non-English sources not examined.
Domain 3 — Evaluation Consistency¶
| Criterion | Rating |
|---|---|
| Were all sources evaluated using the same criteria? | Low risk |
| Were ratings applied consistently? | Low risk |
| Were COI assessments performed? | Low risk |
Notes: COI identified for enterprise vendors (Glean, IBM) selling AI solutions. Academic sources assessed for methodological rigor.
Domain 4 — Synthesis Fairness¶
| Criterion | Rating |
|---|---|
| Were all hypotheses given fair treatment? | Low risk |
| Was contradicting evidence weighted appropriately? | Low risk |
| Were conclusions driven by evidence? | Low risk |
Notes: H1 (comprehensive training) was given fair treatment; IBM and NIST content was acknowledged as more sophisticated than typical training. H2 (occasional random errors) was acknowledged as partially reflecting the employee experience.
Domain 5 — Source-Back Verification¶
| Source | Extract Verified | Assessment Consistent | Discrepancy |
|---|---|---|---|
| SRC01 | Yes | Yes | None |
| SRC02 | Yes | Yes | None |
| SRC03 | Yes | Yes | None |
| SRC04 | Yes | Yes | None |
| SRC05 | Yes | Yes | None |
| SRC06 | Yes | Yes | None |
| SRC07 | Yes | Yes | None |
| SRC08 | Yes | Yes | None |
- Discrepancy count: 0
- Corrections applied: None
- Unresolved flags: None
Overall Assessment¶
Rating: Low risk
Research methodology was systematic. The gap finding is well-supported by evidence from both sides (what research knows vs. what training teaches). Main limitation is the one low-reliability source (SRC03, technical blog) which was triangulated against higher-reliability sources.
Researcher Bias Check¶
The researcher's framing assumes the hallucination-sycophancy connection is important for training. This assumption is supported by the evidence (the connection affects detection difficulty and renders standard "verify" advice insufficient) but should be noted as a framing choice.