R0057/2026-04-01/C025 — Assessment

Research	R0057 — RLHF Yes-Men Claims v3
Run	2026-04-01
Claim	C025

BLUF

Confirmed. Verified against all three sources: (1) MIT AI Risk Repository does not list sycophancy as a named risk category. (2) AIR 2024 taxonomy does not contain the word 'sycophancy'. (3) Standardized Threat Taxonomy (9 domains, 53 sub-threats) does not contain the word 'sycophancy'.

Probability

Rating: Almost certain (95-99%)

Confidence in assessment: High

Confidence rationale: Three independent taxonomies were directly checked. All three confirmed omission.

Reasoning Chain

1. Direct verification: (1) MIT AI Risk Repository lists 7 domains with 24 subdomains — sycophancy is not a named category, though related risks appear under Human-Computer Interaction. (2) AIR 2024 has 314 risk types in 4 domains — the word sycophancy does not appear. (3) Standardized Threat Taxonomy has 9 domains and 53 sub-threats — the word sycophancy does not appear. [SRC01-E01, High reliability, High relevance]

2. JUDGMENT: Confirmed. Verified against all three sources: (1) MIT AI Risk Repository does not list sycophancy as a named risk category. (2) AIR 2024 taxonomy does not contain the word 'sycophancy'. (3) Standardized Threat Taxonomy (9 domains, 53 sub-threats) does not contain the word 'sycophancy'.

Evidence Base Summary

Source	Description	Reliability	Relevance	Key Finding
SRC01	MIT AI Risk Repository, AIR 2024, and Standardized Threat Taxonomy	High	High	Sycophancy does not appear in MIT AI Risk Repository, AIR 2024, or Standardized Threat Taxonomy

Collection Synthesis

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

Detail

The evidence supports the assessment. Three independent taxonomies were directly checked. All three confirmed omission.

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