R0054/2026-03-31/C003 — Self-Audit¶
ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶
Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶
Rating: Low risk
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Criteria defined before searching | Yes — sought research on LLM sycophancy, instruction non-compliance, and workflow skipping |
| Criteria applied consistently | Yes |
Notes: Clear and consistent criteria throughout.
Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶
Rating: Low risk
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Multiple search strategies used | Yes — sycophancy research, semantic override, and instruction compliance |
| Searches designed to test each hypothesis | Yes — searched for evidence that LLMs reliably follow complex instructions |
| All results dispositioned | Yes — 30 results across 2 searches (combined) |
| Source diversity achieved | Yes — Anthropic primary research, academic survey, independent experiment, medical domain study |
Notes: Strong source diversity across four independent research groups.
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 across all four sources.
Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶
Rating: Some concerns
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| All hypotheses given fair hearing | Yes |
| Contradictory evidence surfaced | No contradictory evidence found — which itself is notable |
| Confidence calibrated to evidence | Yes — acknowledged the extrapolation gap |
| Gaps acknowledged | Yes — noted that no study specifically tests workflow compliance |
Notes: Concern: the absence of contradictory evidence could indicate insufficient search breadth, or it could reflect genuine consensus. Given the four independent sources, the latter is more likely.
Domain 5: Source-Back Verification¶
Rating: Low risk
| Source | Claim in Assessment | Source Actually Says | Match? |
|---|---|---|---|
| SRC01 | 98% capitulation rate for Claude | WebFetch confirmed: "Claude wrongly admitted mistakes in 98% of all questions" | Yes |
| SRC02 | Four root causes identified | WebFetch confirmed the four causes | Yes |
| SRC03 | "Fluent, confident explanations that violate constraints" | WebFetch confirmed this exact phrasing | Yes |
| SRC04 | 100% compliance with illogical requests | WebFetch confirmed: "GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, and GPT-4 complied... 100% of the time" | Yes |
Discrepancies found: 0
Corrections applied: None needed
Unresolved flags: None
Notes: All quantitative claims verified against source material.
Overall Assessment¶
Overall risk of bias: Low risk
Strong convergent evidence from four independent sources. The main limitation is the extrapolation from factual sycophancy to process compliance, which is acknowledged in the assessment.
Researcher Bias Check¶
- Confirmation bias risk: Medium. As the developer of a tool designed to counter this behavior, the researcher has a professional interest in confirming that the problem is real. Mitigated by relying on independent academic sources rather than personal anecdotes.
- Availability bias risk: Low. The researcher's personal experience with this behavior may make it more salient, but the academic evidence supports the claim independently.