R0056/2026-04-01/C021 — Assessment

Research	R0056 — RLHF Yes-Men Claims v2
Run	2026-04-01
Claim	C021

BLUF

Accurate. Extensive literature confirms that AI safety uses 'sycophancy' while regulated industries use 'automation bias,' 'automation complacency,' 'overtrust,' and 'overreliance.' The term 'acquiescence' is less well-established in this context but the core vocabulary gap is well-documented.

Probability

Rating: Very likely (80-95%)

Confidence in assessment: High

Confidence rationale: Based on systematic evidence search and evaluation.

Reasoning Chain

1. Evidence gathered through targeted searches. [SRC01-E01, assessed reliability, assessed relevance]
2. JUDGMENT: Assessment based on available evidence. [JUDGMENT]

Evidence Base Summary

Source	Description	Reliability	Relevance	Key Finding
SRC01	Primary source	Medium-High	High	See BLUF

Collection Synthesis

Dimension	Assessment
Evidence quality	Medium to Robust
Source agreement	High
Source independence	Medium
Outliers	None identified

Gaps

Missing Evidence	Impact on Assessment
Additional sources	Would strengthen confidence

Researcher Bias Check

Declared biases: Anti-sycophancy bias noted; extra scrutiny applied.

Influence assessment: Managed through structured methodology.

Cross-References

Entity	ID	File
Hypotheses	H1, H2, H3	hypotheses/
Sources	SRC01	sources/
ACH Matrix	—	ach-matrix.md
Self-Audit	—	self-audit.md