R0031/2026-03-27/C001 — Assessment¶
BLUF¶
The KPMG/University of Melbourne study confirms the core claim. Global trust sits at 46%, the study covered 47 countries, and the advanced/emerging economy divide is real. However, the precise respondent count of "48,340" is not confirmed — the primary source says "over 48,000." The advanced/emerging split appears as approximately 40%/60% in press materials, with 39%/57% likely drawn from the full report.
Probability¶
Rating: Very likely (80-95%)
Confidence in assessment: High
Confidence rationale: The primary source (KPMG press release and study landing page) directly confirms the core statistics. The only discrepancies are minor precision differences in how numbers are reported.
Reasoning Chain¶
- The KPMG/University of Melbourne study "Trust, attitudes and use of artificial intelligence: A global study 2025" exists and was published in April 2025. [SRC01-E01, High, High]
- The KPMG press release states 46% global trust in AI, confirming the headline number. [SRC01-E01, High, High]
- The press release states "over 48,000 people across 47 countries," not the precise 48,340 cited in the claim. [SRC01-E02, High, High]
- The press release reports advanced economies at 40% trust and emerging economies at 60% trust, while the claim states 39% and 57%. [SRC01-E03, High, High]
- The Melbourne Business School key findings page confirms similar figures. The slight differences (39% vs 40%, 57% vs 60%) suggest the claim may reference more precise figures from the full report, while press materials round. [SRC01-E03, High, Medium]
Evidence Base Summary¶
| Source | Description | Reliability | Relevance | Key Finding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SRC01 | KPMG/Melbourne press release and study page | High | High | Confirms 46% global trust, ~48,000 respondents, 47 countries, advanced/emerging divide |
Collection Synthesis¶
| Dimension | Assessment |
|---|---|
| Evidence quality | Robust — primary source directly available |
| Source agreement | High — all KPMG/Melbourne materials are consistent |
| Source independence | Low — single study, single source organization |
| Outliers | None |
Detail¶
The evidence base is narrow but authoritative. The claim references a single study and the primary source confirms the core statistics. The minor discrepancies (precise respondent count, exact percentages for advanced/emerging economies) are consistent with the claim author using figures from the full report while we verified against press summaries.
Gaps¶
| Missing Evidence | Impact on Assessment |
|---|---|
| Full report PDF with exact figures | Would resolve whether 48,340 and 39%/57% appear in the detailed report |
| Independent replication of survey findings | Would increase confidence but not expected for this type of study |
Researcher Bias Check¶
Declared biases: No researcher profile provided for this run.
Influence assessment: N/A
Cross-References¶
| Entity | ID | File |
|---|---|---|
| Hypotheses | H1, H2, H3 | hypotheses/ |
| Sources | SRC01 | sources/ |
| ACH Matrix | — | ach-matrix.md |
| Self-Audit | — | self-audit.md |