C022¶


Research	R0057 — RLHF Yes-Men Claims v3
Run	2026-04-01
Claim	C022

Claim: These system-side and human-side vocabularies describe the same phenomenon but from opposite ends, and no shared vocabulary bridges them.

BLUF: Partially confirmed. The vocabulary gap exists and is recognized. Some bridging attempts exist (Georgetown CSET's automation bias paper connects the terms, and recent medRxiv paper introduces 'structural drift'), but no widely adopted shared vocabulary has emerged that bridges AI safety and human factors communities.

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 shared vocabulary bridges exist at all	Plausible
H2	Bridging attempts exist but have not achieved widespread adoption	Supported
H3	Effective shared vocabulary already exists	Not supported

Searches¶

ID	Target	Results	Selected
S01	AI safety sycophancy automation bias bridging vocabulary shared terminology	10	1

Sources¶

Source	Description	Reliability	Relevance
SRC01	Georgetown CSET and academic bridging attempts	Medium	High

Revisit Triggers¶

If a shared vocabulary framework is published and adopted