R0053/2026-03-31-02/C003 — Self-Audit¶
ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶
Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶
Rating: Low risk
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Defined sycophancy before searching | Yes — AI prioritizing agreement over accuracy |
| Defined workflow compliance before searching | Yes — following stated process steps |
Notes: Clear criteria established.
Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶
Rating: Low risk
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Multiple search strategies used | Yes — sycophancy research and instruction compliance |
| Searches designed to test each hypothesis | Yes |
| All results dispositioned | Yes — 20 results |
| Source diversity achieved | Yes — ICLR, SciELO, Science/Fortune, Nature |
Notes: Strong source diversity from top academic venues.
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 |
Notes: Consistent evaluation.
Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶
Rating: Low risk
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| All hypotheses given fair hearing | Yes — H2 kept as inconclusive |
| Contradictory evidence surfaced | Yes — acknowledged other possible causes |
| Confidence calibrated to evidence | Yes |
| Gaps acknowledged | Yes |
Notes: Fair treatment of all hypotheses.
Domain 5: Source-Back Verification¶
Rating: Low risk
| Source | Claim in Assessment | Source Actually Says | Match? |
|---|---|---|---|
| SRC01 | Five AI assistants exhibit sycophancy across four tasks | "five state-of-the-art AI assistants consistently exhibit sycophancy across four varied free-form text-generation tasks" | Yes |
| SRC02 | Conflict avoidance misinterpreted as never contradicting | "programming for helpfulness gets misinterpreted as never contradicting" | Yes |
| SRC03 | AI validates 49% more than humans | "chatbots affirm user actions 49% more often than other humans did" | Yes |
Discrepancies found: 0
Corrections applied: None needed
Unresolved flags: None
Notes: All claims accurately reflect sources.
Overall Assessment¶
Overall risk of bias: Low risk
Strong convergent evidence from independent sources. The main limitation is the inference from general sycophancy to specific workflow-skipping behavior, which is logical but not directly tested in the cited studies.
Researcher Bias Check¶
- Confirmation bias risk: The claim matches common AI user frustrations, which could lead to uncritical acceptance. Mitigated by strong academic evidence.
- No researcher profile provided: Cannot check declared biases.