urn:uuid:56633ca2-0594-59a1-9a54-db7d05f1d80c SocioLens — RO-LD07-07: How do research ethics boards judge synthetic participants and AI-interpreted data? New versions of this research opportunity and changes to the claims it rests on. 2026-10-13T00:00:00Z SocioLens urn:uuid:e8bb3e23-7ac0-535d-8e38-d3cd180a7766 Research opportunity revised to v2: RO-LD07-07 — How do research ethics boards judge synthetic participants and AI-interpreted data? 2026-10-13T00:00:00Z Literature check added: a second, deeper search for existing work, with its queries, new nearest work and limits. The verdict changed from "No study found doing the core design" to "Related work exists" because related work turned up; the question stands. urn:uuid:fda79d01-971a-5703-800d-cdbde4d98843 New research opportunity: RO-LD07-07 — How do research ethics boards judge synthetic participants and AI-interpreted data? 2026-10-12T00:00:00Z How do ethics-board guidance documents across countries classify synthetic participants, LLM coding or interpretation of qualitative data, and transfer of participant data to commercial model APIs, and in a factorial vignette, do board members' decisions and requested safeguards vary with data sensitivity, model hosting and the degree of delegated interpretation? urn:uuid:e45e89a7-6dcd-5688-9188-341e77865a9f Radar update RADAR-LD07-PEW-SYNTHETIC-SURVEYS-2026 (v1.0) 2026-10-07T00:00:00Z Pew Research Center (30 September 2026) built an AI “digital twin” for each panelist analyzed from three 2026 waves of its American Trends Panel, a nationally representative panel of randomly selected U.S. adults. Each twin was conditioned on that person’s profile and earlier survey answers, and weighted synthetic and human results were compared on nearly 300 questions. With its best-performing configuration (Claude Opus 4.6), synthetic estimates differed from human estimates by an average of 12.4 percentage points. Error was substantial for every subgroup reported, reaching 16.1 points for Republicans and Republican leaners and 15.1 points for Black adults. On 47% of questions at least one answer choice was selected by no synthetic respondent, which happened on no question among humans. Results also differed systematically by AI model, although some toplines matched closely. This strengthens the evidence for LD07-HQ-C06 on selected-average agreement, real-world response variance and subgroup heterogeneity. The report contains no regression or treatment-effect analysis and no individual-level accuracy result for its final configuration, so those parts of the claim are unchanged. The claim wording is unchanged.