R0048/2026-04-01/Q003 — Self-Audit¶
ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶
Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶
Rating: Low risk
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Sub-questions identified | Yes — what is taught, how characterized, is sycophancy connected |
| Criteria defined before searching | Yes — searched for training content and research separately |
| Scope appropriate | Yes — covered training materials and AI safety research |
Notes: The three sub-questions provided clear structure for the investigation.
Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶
Rating: Low risk
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Multiple search strategies used | Yes — two searches targeting training content and hallucination-sycophancy research |
| All results dispositioned | Yes — 20 results across 2 searches dispositioned |
| Source diversity achieved | Yes — government (DOL), professional (IAPP), academic (Tsinghua/Stanford), technical (Giskard, Fikril), media (Fortune) |
Notes: Comprehensive coverage of both training content and AI safety research.
Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶
Rating: Low risk
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| All sources scored consistently | Yes |
| Evidence typed consistently | Yes |
| ACH matrix applied | Yes |
| Diagnosticity analysis performed | Yes |
Notes: Consistent evaluation across all five sources.
Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶
Rating: Low risk
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| All hypotheses given fair hearing | Yes — H1 actively searched for in both training and research |
| Contradictory evidence surfaced | Yes — IAPP characterization as fundamental (partial H1 support) highlighted |
| Confidence calibrated to evidence | Yes — Medium-High reflects strong convergent finding |
| Gaps acknowledged | Yes — internal training content gap noted |
Notes: The finding aligns with researcher expectations but is independently well-supported.
Domain 5: Source-Back Verification¶
Rating: Low risk
| Source | Claim in Assessment | Source Actually Says | Match? |
|---|---|---|---|
| SRC03 | DOL names "hallucinations and accuracy limits" | Campus Technology reports this as Area 1 subtopic | Yes |
| SRC05 | "Same behaviour at the neuron level" | Giskard states this citing Tsinghua H-Neuron research | Yes |
| SRC01 | "Not mere bugs, but signatures of how these machines think" | IAPP article uses this exact framing | Yes |
| SRC04 | AI 49% more sycophantic than humans | Fortune reports this statistic from Science study | Yes |
Discrepancies found: 0
Corrections applied: None needed
Unresolved flags: None
Notes: All claims verified against source content.
Overall Assessment¶
Overall risk of bias: Low risk
The research process was systematic and the finding is strongly supported by convergent evidence from independent sources. The distinction between what training teaches (hallucination as random error) and what research shows (hallucination and sycophancy as related neural behaviors) is clearly documented.
Researcher Bias Check¶
- Confirmation bias risk: MODERATE — the finding confirms the researcher's expectation that the hallucination-sycophancy connection is not made in training. Compensated by active search for counterevidence and detailed treatment of IAPP analysis as the most sophisticated governance source.
- Framing bias risk: The research questions themselves suggest the connection should be made in training. This framing was acknowledged and did not prevent fair evaluation of H3 (hallucination not addressed) — which was properly eliminated.