Synth Users POC v2

P02 · Likert 1–5

Question editor

Question text

Type

Response typeLikert 1–5›

LabelsStrongly disagree … agree›

Settings

Randomise display

Ask rationale

Variable IDprop_02

⚠Slight semantic overlap detected with Prop 07. Review both for clarity.

P1

Budget Buyer

Age 25–34 · Mixed gender · Low–medium familiarity

38

respondents

3.8

avg rating

Motivations

Lower financial risk

Clear, demonstrable value

Ease of team adoption

Objections

Unclear ROI calculation

Credibility / proof concerns

Setup and onboarding friction

Tone

Skeptical, concise

Responds well to concrete evidence. Low tolerance for vague claims.

Add hypothesis

Add a new belief, assumption, or testable idea for this study.

Or start from

Generate from objective›

Generate from audience›

Use a template›

Common hypothesis types

Message resonance›

Segment difference›

Trust / objection›

Value / pricing sensitivity›

New hypothesis

Hypothesis statement

Type

Message resonance ›

Applies to

All audience ›

Confidence before study

Medium ›

Priority

High ›

Optional note

Status Start typing a statement

Review hypothesis

Original

Inkubis suggests

Status Measurable

Downstream suggestions

Hypothesis detail

Type

Applies to

Confidence

Priority

Status

Downstream

Suggestions for study

Based on your objective, Inkubis suggests these testable ideas:

Faster product decisions will be the strongest lead message

Trust and proof will matter more to lower-familiarity teams

Prioritisation messaging will outperform research-speed messaging

Cost-efficiency will resonate with budget-conscious buyers

Suggestions for audience

Based on "mixed seniority" and "decision-makers", Inkubis suggests:

Senior leaders will respond more to strategic leverage than tactical efficiency

Lower-familiarity teams will need stronger trust signals

Founders will over-index on speed and cost-efficiency

Use a template

Message resonance›

Segment difference›

Trust / objection›

Value / pricing sensitivity›

Positioning clarity›

Segment difference

Hypothesis already exists

This looks very similar to an existing hypothesis in this study.

Potential overlap

This may partially overlap with another hypothesis.

New

Existing

Needs clarification

This is too broad to test.

Add more detail:

• who
• what they respond to
• what this is compared with

Split recommended

This contains more than one testable idea.

Suggested split

Conflicts with existing

This hypothesis points in the opposite direction to one already in the study.

Existing

New

Contradictions can be useful — they may be exactly what this study is meant to resolve.

Discard changes?

You started drafting a hypothesis.

Add question

Add a new item to this instrument.

Or start from

Generate from hypothesis›

Duplicate existing›

Use a template›

Import from previous wave›

Common question types

Proposition / Likert›

Open-text rationale›

Attention check›

Screener / filter›

Demographic / segment›

New question

Question type

Proposition / Likert ›

Question text

Answer format

5-point Likert ›

Link to hypothesis

None ›

Variable ID

auto prop_04

Settings

Randomise display

Ask rationale on high scores

Required

Optional note

Status Start writing a question

Review question

Original

Inkubis flags

Respondent preview ›

Analyst preview

Variable

Type

Hypothesis

Respondent preview

Mobile readability Good

Generate from hypothesis

Select one or more hypotheses to generate questions from.

ROI message will outperform ease message

Trust signals matter more for low-familiarity users

Cost-efficiency will over-index with budget-conscious segments

Suggested questions

Duplicate question

Select a question to duplicate and edit.

P01Message feels clear and relevant›

P02This message feels valuable to me›

P03I would trust this pricing model›

Use a template

Proposition / Likert›

Open-text rationale›

Attention check›

Screener / filter›

Demographic / segment›

Question detail

Type

Format

Linked hypothesis

Variable ID

Status

Respondent preview ›

Question already exists

This looks very similar to an existing item in the instrument.

Existing

Potential overlap

This may overlap with another question already in the instrument.

New

Existing

Type mismatch

This reads like an open-text rationale rather than a scaled proposition.

Long for mobile

This question may be hard to scan on a phone screen.

Suggested rewrite

Leading wording

This question may bias responses.

Current

Suggested

Variable already used

Suggested

Add persona

Add a new archetype to this panel.

Or start from

Generate from brief›

Generate from audience›

Duplicate existing›

Import from previous wave›

Common starting points

Budget-conscious buyer›

High-familiarity power user›

Skeptical evaluator›

Executive decision-maker›

New persona

Persona name

Short role label

Category familiarity

Low ›

Tone / response style

Skeptical, concise ›

Motivations

Objections

Optional note

Status Start writing a persona

Add motivation

Suggested

Reduce risk

Move faster

Justify decisions

Demonstrate ROI

Improve confidence

Simplify workflow

Build team trust

Custom

Add objection

Suggested

Unclear proof

Setup friction

Generic claims

Cost uncertainty

Team adoption risk

Credibility gap

Too theoretical

Custom

Review persona

Summary

Inkubis flags

Panel impact

Persona detail

Motivations

Objections

Tone

Source

QuotaNot yet balanced

Suggestions for panel

Based on your study brief, Inkubis suggests these missing archetypes:

Research-light founder

Low familiarity · cost-aware

Proof-seeking product lead

Mid familiarity · trust-heavy

Efficiency-focused operator

Mid familiarity · workflow-led

Suggestions from audience

Based on your audience rules:

Founder with low familiarity

Cost-sensitive · fast mover

Product manager with medium familiarity

Process-aware · team-led

Budget-sensitive buyer

ROI-focused · risk-averse

Skeptical evaluator

Proof-heavy · slow decision cycle

Duplicate persona

Select a persona to duplicate and edit.

Budget Buyer›

Power User›

Skeptical Lead›

Regenerate persona

Refresh this archetype while preserving its role.

Keep fixed

Persona name

Core segment

Motivations

Objections

Tone

Why regenerate?

Needs clearer differentiation ›

Compare regenerated

Current

New version

Changed

Lock persona

This will keep the persona stable through later generation steps. Edits are still allowed manually.

Update quotas?

Your panel structure changed.

This may affect respondent allocation and coverage.

Personas may overlap

These archetypes appear very similar in motivations and tone.

New

Existing

Persona name already exists

Needs clarification

This persona is too broad to be useful in the panel.

Add more detail:
• role
• familiarity level
• motivations
• objections

Delete persona?

Removing this archetype will affect panel balance.

Currently used in panel draft

Edit locked persona?

Heavy changes may reduce wave comparability.

Discard changes?

You started editing this persona.

Matrix not recommended

Matrix questions are hard to use in this mobile-first flow. Inkubis can split this into separate mobile-friendly items.

Discard changes?

You started editing this question.

Behaviour model

Response variationMedium

Attention fail rate10%

Rationale subset20%

Include response delays

Persona-consistent noise

Distribution

300

Total N

8

Personas

⚠ 1

Warning

By persona

P01

38

P02

42

P03

35

P04

36

P05

30

By age

18–24

60

25–34

105

35–44

75

45+

21

Warning: low coverage in age 45+ segments. Needs review

QA Details

300

Total rows

0

Duplicates

Quota drift2.1%

Attention fail rate9.7%

Zero variance items0

Missing data0.3%

Attention fail rate of 9.7% is within normal range (target <15%). No action required.

Add audience rule

Shape who the synthetic audience represents.

Suggested audience rules

◇IndustrySaaS / software+

◇Company size11–200 employees+

◇SeniorityManager++

◇Role typeAdd role type›

Other common criteria

Team maturity›

Budget responsibility›

Tooling / workflow›

Buying stage›

Add seniority

Study guardrails

Set boundaries for safety, inference, and conclusions.

Inkubis starts with safe defaults

Safe settings are already active for this study. You can review and adjust them for your specific context.

You can configure:

⚖Sensitivity / regulatory context

✓What Inkubis may infer

⊘What Inkubis must not infer

▣Evidence / claims boundaries

Sensitivity / regulatory context

How careful should Inkubis be with this study?

Sensitivity level

Standard

Sensitive

High sensitivity

Recommended study context

Business / workplace

Based on your brief.

Choose study context ›

Special handling

Minors

Vulnerable groups

Regulated claims

Sensitive personal topics

More options›

Choose study context

Select the closest context. This helps Inkubis apply sensible defaults.

Suggested

Food / consumer concept›

Business / workplace›

Health / medical›

More options

Civic / political›

Education / public services›

Retail / shopper›

Service experience›

Media / messaging›

Other / mixed›

Apply recommended preset?

Inkubis can update guardrails for this study context.

Selected context

Business / workplace

Recommended changes

•Tighten allowed inference

•Expand forbidden inference

•Strengthen claims boundaries

Special handling

Add any extra protections needed for this study.

Minors

Vulnerable groups

Regulated claims

Sensitive personal topics

Accessibility considerations

Professional / clinical roles

+Add custom handling

Mixed study context

This study spans more than one context. Choose the closest base and add extra handling if needed.

Base context

Choose base context›

Secondary context

Choose secondary context›

Why mixed?

Apply mixed-context preset?

Base context

Business / workplace

Secondary context

Health / medical

Inkubis recommends

•Sensitive handling

•Stricter forbidden inference

•Stronger claims boundaries

What Inkubis may infer

Allow Inkubis to fill gaps only where it is reasonable and safe.

Infer likely role from the audience summary

Infer common category usage context

Infer budget sensitivity

Infer prior experience when not specified

Infer purchase occasion

+Add custom inference rule

Add inference rule

Rule name

Description

Scope

This study only›

Caution level

Low›

What Inkubis must not infer

Set hard limits on what Inkubis must never fill in or invent.

Do not infer protected traits

Do not assume buying authority

Do not infer household income

Do not infer medical conditions

Do not infer political preference

+Add forbidden inference

Add forbidden inference

Rule name

Description

Scope

This study only›

Severity

Hard block›

Evidence / claims boundaries

Output positioning

Directional only

Findings indicate a direction — no strong conclusions

Directional, non-causal

Patterns suggested — no cause/effect implied

Strongly constrained

Maximum caution — for regulated or high-risk domains

Prevent these claim types

No causal claims

No population representativeness

No clinical claims

No diagnostic claims

No policy recommendation

No unsupported health claims

+Add claims boundary

Add claims boundary

Boundary name

Description

Scope

This study only›

Guardrail conflict

Some settings currently point in different directions.

Conflict found

"Infer likely medical condition" conflicts with "Do not infer medical conditions"

Resolve conflict

Allowed inference

Infer likely medical condition

Forbidden inference

Do not infer medical conditions

Recommendation

Keep forbidden inference and remove the allowed rule.

Review guardrails

Sensitivity / regulatory context

Standard safeguards

What Inkubis may infer

Using default rules

What Inkubis must not infer

Using default rules

Evidence / claims boundaries

Directional only

Overall strictness

Standard

Discard changes?

You changed this guardrail but have not saved it yet.

Reset this row?

This will remove any custom rules and restore the default guardrail for this study context.

Apply guardrail preset

Set all rows at once for a common study type.

Standard consumer / food›

Standard business›

Health-sensitive›

Civic / political›

Education / public services›

Custom›

Starting assumptions

Control how much Inkubis should rely on default assumptions before running the study.

Assumption mode

Use defaults

Inkubis applies standard assumptions for your study type.

Light custom assumptions

Adjust a few anchors while keeping most defaults.

Fully custom assumptions

Define your own starting assumptions from scratch.

Reproducibility

A fixed seed keeps runs consistent and comparable. Override the auto value to pin a specific seed.

Seed mode

Fixed seed — auto (default)

Inkubis auto-generates a stable seed. You can overwrite it below.

Random seed

A new seed is used on every run. Results may vary between reruns.

Seed value

Use when comparing reruns, debugging, or sharing a reproducible setup with your team.

Structured output

Choose what should be prepared alongside the standard study output.

Standard report

Human-readable summary of findings and insights.

JSON

Machine-readable structured data for integrations.

CSV

Spreadsheet-compatible export of responses.

API-ready bundle

Full structured payload for programmatic use.

Geography

Where should the audience be located?

Geography mode

Specific places

Broad region

e.g. Northern Europe, Asia-Pacific

No geographic restriction

Selected places

Optional note

Add location

Suggested

Inclusion / exclusion

Define who should be included or excluded from this study.

Include

Exclude

Add rule

Rule type

Common rule types

Age band›

Frequency / behaviour›

Usage / purchase history›

Health / condition context›

Role / occupation›

Custom rule

Category familiarity

How familiar should the audience be with the category, topic, or type of thing being studied?

Familiarity with

Required familiarity band

None / first-time

Low

Medium

High

Mixed

Broad or general-population study

Not constrained

Role / relationship

What role does this audience have in relation to the study subject?

Selected roles

Suggested roles

Add role

Common relationship types

Custom role

Review brief

Ready to generate panel?

Check what is complete before moving to the next step.

Overall readiness 72%

Objective

Clear, measurable decision defined

Ready ›

Which pricing message drives highest intent among B2B buyers with low product familiarity?

Audience

Inclusion / exclusion rules could be more precise

Partial ›

B2B decision-makers, mixed seniority, SaaS-adjacent roles

Core dimensions

Geography: UK, US, AU
Inclusion / exclusion: 3 rules
Category familiarity: Low–medium
Role / relationship: Buyer, evaluator

Hypotheses

2 measurable hypotheses added

Ready ›

H1 ROI message will outperform ease message
H2 Trust signals matter more for low-familiarity users

Study guardrails

Standard safeguards active across all 4 rows

Default ›

Sensitivity / regulatory context: Standard safeguards
What Inkubis may infer: Using default rules
What Inkubis must not infer: Using default rules
Evidence / claims boundaries: Directional only

Advanced

All settings using defaults

Default ›

Starting assumptions: Using defaults
Reproducibility: Auto seed
Structured output: Standard report

Inkubis recommends

• Tighten inclusion / exclusion rules for a cleaner audience definition
• Consider adding a third hypothesis around category preference

Submit and go?

Inkubis will use this brief to generate the synthetic panel for the next step.

ObjectiveReady

AudiencePartial

HypothesesReady

GuardrailsDefault

AdvancedDefault

Generation settings

How should Inkubis translate hypotheses into survey statements?

Statements per hypothesis

1 2 3

Options

Reverse statementsInclude reverse-coded statements

Open-ended follow-upAdd one open-ended question at the end

Question order

Randomize statements Keep grouped by hypothesis

Scale

5-point agreement

Strongly disagree → Strongly agree

H1 · Hypothesis

Original hypothesis

Generated statements

Group actions

+Add one more statement

↺Regenerate all

Add one more statement

Inkubis will generate another survey statement for this hypothesis while keeping the current ones.

Keep fixed

Neutral tone

Single-idea structure

Shorter wording

More contrast with existing statements

Regenerate all statements

Inkubis will replace all statements linked to this hypothesis.

Keep fixed

Hypothesis meaning

Neutral tone

Current statement count

Similar phrasing style

Statement detail

Linked hypothesis

H1 · Faster product decisions

Statement text

Checks

Clear wording Single idea Neutral tone

Actions

Edit›

Replace›

Delete›

Edit statement

Statement text

Checks

Clear wording Single idea Neutral tone

Replace statement

Current

This product helps my team make better decisions faster.

New option

This product makes it easier for my team to reach decisions quickly.

Why this version

• shorter

• simpler wording

• same hypothesis meaning

Delete statement?

This statement will be removed from the survey. The linked hypothesis will not be affected.

Statement

This product helps my team make better decisions faster.

Survey shell

Introduction

You'll see a series of statements about this concept. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree.

Instructions

Answer each item using the same scale.

Answer scale

5-point Likert

Strongly disagree → Strongly agree

Scale is fixed for this release.

Order

Randomized across generated statements

Preview survey

Respondent view

You'll see a series of statements about this concept. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree.

This product helps my team make better decisions faster.

Strongly disagree 2 3 4 Strongly agree

This product reduces debate before deciding what to do next.

Strongly disagree 2 3 4 Strongly agree

… 3 more statements

Quality review

1 issue found

Potential overlap

– This product helps my team make better decisions faster.

– This product improves decision confidence before launch.

Suggested fix: Keep one and regenerate the other.

No other issues found.

Review overlap

Statement A

This product helps my team make better decisions faster.

Statement B

This product improves decision confidence before launch.

Recommendation

Keep the clearer item and replace the more overlapping one.