R0056/2026-04-01/C024 — Assessment

Research	R0056 — RLHF Yes-Men Claims v2
Run	2026-04-01
Claim	C024

BLUF

Accurate. Verified by direct examination: (1) AIR 2024 does not contain 'sycophancy' or 'sycophantic' in its 314 risk categories; (2) The Standardized Threat Taxonomy's nine domains do not include sycophancy; (3) The MIT AI Risk Repository's domain taxonomy does not list sycophancy as a distinct category.

Probability

Rating: Almost certain (95-99%)

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