C001 — Self-Audit¶


Research	R0056 — RLHF Yes-Men Claims v2
Run	2026-04-01
Claim	C001

ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶

Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
Evidence criteria defined before search	Yes — looking for the source study confirming or denying the 49% figure
Criteria remained stable	Yes — no shift after seeing results

Notes: Straightforward factual claim with clear verification criteria.

Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
Multiple search strategies used	Yes — searched for the study directly and through news coverage
Searches designed to test each hypothesis	Yes — searched for contradicting evidence and methodological critiques
All results dispositioned	Yes — 10 results returned, 3 selected
Source diversity achieved	Partial — all trace to the same underlying study

Notes: The search found the study through multiple independent reporting channels. No contradicting evidence was found.

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: Single source limits the evaluation breadth but the source quality is high.

Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
All hypotheses given fair hearing	Yes
Contradictory evidence surfaced	No contradictory evidence found
Confidence calibrated to evidence	Yes — high confidence warranted by peer review in Science
Gaps acknowledged	Yes — lack of replication noted

Notes: The assessment is straightforward given the quality of the primary source.

Domain 5: Source-Back Verification¶

Rating: Low risk

Source	Claim in Assessment	Source Actually Says	Match?
SRC01	49% more affirmation across 11 LLMs	"models on average endorsed the user 49% more often than humans"	Yes

Discrepancies found: 0

Corrections applied: None needed

Unresolved flags: None

Notes: The 49% figure is consistently reported across all sources examined.

Overall Assessment¶

Overall risk of bias: Low risk

The claim is a straightforward factual assertion about a published study. The evidence directly confirms the claim. The main limitation is that all evidence traces to a single study.

Researcher Bias Check¶

Confirmation bias risk: Low. The researcher's anti-sycophancy bias aligns with wanting this claim to be true, but the evidence is strong enough (peer-reviewed in Science) that the bias does not materially affect the assessment.