C013¶


Research	R0057 — RLHF Yes-Men Claims v3
Run	2026-04-01
Claim	C013

Claim: A search of 29 sources across corporate training providers, consulting firms (Deloitte, KPMG), government agencies (GSA, DoD, NHS, UK Government Digital Service), regulatory frameworks (EU AI Act, NIST AI RMF), law firm policy templates, and UX research organizations found none that warn about sycophancy — not by that name, not as automation bias, overtrust, confirmation reinforcement, or any related term.

BLUF: Partially confirmed. No evidence was found of mainstream corporate AI training materials explicitly warning about sycophancy. The absence is consistent with the broader finding that sycophancy is absent from risk taxonomies and enterprise training. However, the specific 29-source methodology cannot be independently verified.

Probability: Likely (55-80%) | Confidence: Medium

Summary¶

Entity	Description
Claim Definition	Claim text, scope, status
Assessment	Full analytical product with reasoning chain
ACH Matrix	Evidence x hypotheses diagnosticity analysis
Self-Audit	ROBIS-adapted 5-domain audit

Hypotheses¶

ID	Hypothesis	Status
H1	No corporate training materials warn about sycophancy across all 29 sources	Plausible
H2	The general absence is real but the specific 29-source count is unverifiable	Supported
H3	Some sources do warn about sycophancy or related terms	Not supported

Searches¶

ID	Target	Results	Selected
S01	Corporate AI training sycophancy warning automation bias overtrust absent	10	1

Sources¶

Source	Description	Reliability	Relevance
SRC01	Search across corporate AI training landscape	Medium	High

Revisit Triggers¶

If any major corporate training provider adds sycophancy warnings to their materials