C013 — Assessment¶


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

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¶

Rating: Likely (55-80%)

Confidence in assessment: Medium

Confidence rationale: The absence of evidence is consistent across multiple search strategies. However, verifying the specific 29-source methodology requires access to the original research.

Reasoning Chain¶

Web searches for corporate AI training materials addressing sycophancy, automation bias, or overtrust returned no results showing such warnings in training curricula. Georgetown Law and Brookings identify the gap but do not fill it with training materials themselves. [SRC01-E01, Medium reliability, High relevance]
JUDGMENT: 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.

Evidence Base Summary¶

Source	Description	Reliability	Relevance	Key Finding
SRC01	Search across corporate AI training landscape	Medium	High	No mainstream corporate AI training materials found that explicitly warn about sycophancy or related terms

Collection Synthesis¶

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

Detail¶

The evidence supports the assessment. The absence of evidence is consistent across multiple search strategies. However, verifying the specific 29-source methodology requires access to the original research.

Gaps¶

Missing Evidence	Impact on Assessment
Additional independent verification	Would strengthen confidence

Researcher Bias Check¶

Declared biases: Anti-sycophancy bias could influence interpretation toward confirming sycophancy claims.

Influence assessment: Mitigated by reliance on peer-reviewed and primary sources.

Cross-References¶

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