Large language models are increasingly deployed as high-stakes advisors, yet standard alignment benchmarks treat sycophancy as a binary failure mode. We introduce the Granularity Gap: coarse binary metrics mask substantial social-compliance behaviors where models capitulate to user framing, validate questionable premises, or soften factual corrections without producing overtly false outputs. We evaluate six Gemini variants across generations 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 on 73 adversarial prompts under three guardrail conditions (Control, Simple, Protocol), yielding 8,830 graded responses. Using a 0-4 Likert scale validated against a human annotator triad (Fleiss kappa = 0.71; Cohen kappa = 0.78 vs AI consensus; 95.9 percent binary accuracy, 100 percent specificity), we quantify sycophancy as continuous rather than binary. Three findings emerge. First, 27.2 percent of responses contain substantial sycophantic content (Likert >= 2.0) and 22.7 percent reach moderate or severe levels (>= 3.0), while binary win-rate framing reports only modest failure rates; coarse metrics explain just 29 percent of graded variance. Second, generational progress is non-monotonic: Gen 2.5 regresses sharply (mean Control 2.64) relative to Gen 2.0 (1.90) and Gen 3.0 (2.01), and Gen 2.5 shows inverse scaling (Pro 1.94 worse than Flash 1.71) while Gen 3.0 restores standard scaling. Third, we document an Alignment Tax: Spearman rho = -0.63 between sycophancy and truthfulness, indicating social compliance trades against factual accuracy. Egotistical Validation prompts act as a sycophancy trap (mean 3.27), nearly double Unethical Proposals (1.72). Simple guardrails outperform elaborate Protocol scaffolding on flagship models, but distilled Gen 3.0 Flash inverts this, suggesting small models may structurally require chain-of-thought scaffolding. We release the dataset and rubric to support continuous sycophancy measurement.