R0057/2026-04-01/C001 — Self-Audit¶
ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶
Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶
Rating: Low risk
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Criteria defined before search | Yes — looked for the specific 49% figure in peer-reviewed sources |
| Criteria stable throughout | Yes — no shift in what counted as evidence |
Notes: Straightforward quantitative claim with clear verification criteria.
Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶
Rating: Low risk
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Multiple search strategies used | Yes — searched for study, authors, and specific figure |
| Searches designed to test each hypothesis | Yes — searched for contradicting evidence |
| All results dispositioned | Yes — 10 returned, 3 selected |
| Source diversity achieved | Moderate — most sources trace to single study |
Notes: The claim references a specific study; source diversity is inherently limited.
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 application across all evidence.
Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶
Rating: Low risk
| Criterion | Assessment |
|---|---|
| All hypotheses given fair hearing | Yes — H3 actively investigated |
| Contradictory evidence surfaced | No contradictory evidence found |
| Confidence calibrated to evidence | Yes — Very likely rather than Almost certain due to paywall limitation |
| Gaps acknowledged | Yes — paywall and absence of replication noted |
Notes: The assessment was appropriately calibrated.
Domain 5: Source-Back Verification¶
Rating: Low risk
| Source | Claim in Assessment | Source Actually Says | Match? |
|---|---|---|---|
| SRC01 | Models endorse users 49% more | Multiple secondary sources confirm 49% on general/Reddit prompts | Yes |
Discrepancies found: 0
Corrections applied: None needed
Unresolved flags: None
Notes: The 49% figure is consistently reported across all secondary sources.
Overall Assessment¶
Overall risk of bias: Low risk
The claim is a narrow quantitative assertion verified against a well-documented primary source. The assessment is straightforward.
Researcher Bias Check¶
- Confirmation bias risk: The researcher's anti-sycophancy bias predisposes acceptance of evidence showing AI is sycophantic. Mitigated by the fact that the source is peer-reviewed in Science and the figure is specific and verifiable.