C002 — Self-Audit¶


Research	R0031 — Plural Voice Claims (Blind)
Run	2026-03-29
Claim	C002

ROBIS 4-Domain Audit¶

Domain 1: Eligibility Criteria¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
Criteria defined before searching	Yes — sought primary Ipsos survey data with 31-country scope and 66% figure
Criteria stable throughout	Yes

Notes: Clean eligibility — the question was clear (does this specific Ipsos survey contain this specific figure?).

Domain 2: Search Comprehensiveness¶

Rating: Some concerns

Criterion	Assessment
Multiple search strategies used	Yes — two searches targeting different aspects
Searches designed to test each hypothesis	Yes — specifically sought the Ipsos 31-country survey to test H1
All results dispositioned	Yes — 20 returned, 5 selected, 15 rejected
Source diversity achieved	Yes — Ipsos, KPMG, and secondary sources examined

Notes: Some concerns because not all Ipsos AI Monitor editions were reviewed. It is possible that a specific edition contains the 66% figure. However, targeted searches for this specific statistic across multiple queries returned no matching Ipsos multi-country source.

Domain 3: Evaluation Consistency¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
All sources scored using same framework	Yes
Evidence typed consistently	Yes
ACH matrix applied	Yes
Diagnosticity analysis performed	Yes

Notes: Consistent evaluation across all three sources.

Domain 4: Synthesis Fairness¶

Rating: Low risk

Criterion	Assessment
All hypotheses given fair hearing	Yes — H1 was given opportunity through targeted searches
Contradictory evidence surfaced	Yes — the absence of the figure in the actual 31-country survey is prominently reported
Confidence calibrated to evidence	Yes — Medium confidence reflects the possibility of an unfound Ipsos report
Gaps acknowledged	Yes

Notes: Fair treatment of all hypotheses.

Domain 5: Source-Back Verification¶

Rating: Low risk

Source	Claim in Assessment	Source Actually Says	Match?
SRC01	"Two in three who use AI tools say they don't trust them" — US-only	"Two in three people who use AI tools say they don't trust them, but use them anyway" — from Ipsos Consumer Tracker (US)	Yes
SRC02	31-country survey does not report 66% usage	Survey reports 54%/52%/67% figures but not 66% usage	Yes
SRC03	KPMG reports 66% usage and 46% trust	"66% of people use AI regularly" and "only 46% of people globally are willing to trust AI systems"	Yes

Discrepancies found: 0

Corrections applied: None needed

Unresolved flags: None

Notes: Assessment accurately represents all sources.

Overall Assessment¶

Overall risk of bias: Low risk

The assessment correctly identifies the attribution error while acknowledging the phenomenon is real. The researcher's bias toward the narrative could have led to accepting the claim uncritically, but the evidence-based approach surfaced the misattribution.

Researcher Bias Check¶

Confirmation bias risk: Moderate. The "use despite not trusting" narrative supports the article's thesis. The researcher should be cautious about accepting convenient statistics without verifying attribution chains.
Availability bias risk: Low. Multiple Ipsos surveys were examined, not just the most readily available one.