Appending a two-word confirmation tag to a decision question --"Is X the better choice?"versus"X is the better choice, right?"-- changes whether a language model endorses the choice. We measure this tag effect on 20 frozen, ground-truth-free decisions between two defensible options, counterbalanced so a model's own preferences cancel, scored by exact match on clamped yes/no replies -- no LLM judge, no embeddings. Across 45 models the effect spans +32% to -32% -- a 64-point swing on one word -- with 5 models significantly sycophantic and 17 significantly resistant (BH-FDR q=.10). The sign is a clock: within model families the effect crosses from positive to negative as generations advance (GPT +4 to -28; Claude +7 to -32; Qwen and Grok likewise), roughly -6 points per year, a reversal robust to vendor tier; one lineage (DeepSeek) never crosses, and two releases during the study window (Claude Opus 5, Gemini 3.6 Flash) land on the trend out-of-sample. A full-panel ablation localizes the resistance as a double dissociation: a synonym tag reproduces each model's response almost exactly (r=0.89), while planting the same preference without a tag produces resistance in no resistant model (stance effects +6 to +49; r=0.23 with tag effects). The resistance is keyed to the surface construction of a tacked-on agreement bid, not the user's stance -- a pattern-match, not a principle. And the tag's polarity matters more than its presence: swap one word --"X is the better choice, maybe?"-- and agreement rises above the neutral baseline in 45 of 45 models (+19.6 points), with ten models affirming both mutually exclusive options at 90-100%. Agreement tracks how sure the user sounds, in opposite directions at the two poles. The instrument is one word, one dollar, and judge-free; run per release, it reads the field's anti-sycophancy training directly off model behavior.
When a language model must pick one answer from a large space of equally valid options, which does it pick -- and how often is it the same answer every other model picks? Asked to"pick a word -- any word,"44 models chose"serendipity"41% of the time. We characterize this convergence with a deliberately minimal instrument: 31 single-turn prompts, each naming a category with many valid one-word answers ("Name a tree."), asked four times per model with no system prompt. Analysis is exact-match on normalized tokens -- no embeddings, no judge -- at about a dollar per model. That models converge is well documented; our contribution is the instrument itself -- the One-Word Census -- and what it reveals about the structure of the convergence. We score each model by answer-choice surprisal: the average $-\log2$ probability of its answers under the pooled answers of all other models, leave-one-out. Convergence is extreme -- in 7 of 31 categories one answer takes over 80% of all answers -- yet conformity varies more than fourfold across models, and the variation is structured. Persona- and community-tuned models are the most divergent; the newest mainline flagships are the most conformist, producing almost no answer no other model gave. Within four lineages (Claude, GPT, Qwen, Grok) conformity rises with each generation -- but reverses for the latest flagship Claude and GPT models, a possible early signal of repositioning at the top tier. Rankings are robust to roster composition (leave-one-family-out rho = 0.985). Against human category-production norms, the field is more concentrated than people in 18 of 20 shared categories. All prompts, transcripts, and code are public.
When a language model must choose one answer from a large space of equally valid options, a format clause --"Reply with JSON only"-- changes which answer it chooses, and structured output is how software consumes language models.