Marginal Fidelity Does Not Establish User Simulation in Demographic Synthetic Survey Panels: Response Contracts, Support Collapse and Conditioning Failure

Large language models are increasingly used as synthetic research participants and are often validated by whether their marginal responses resemble human data. We study a fixed panel of sixteen lightweight persona-conditioned GPT-4.1 configurations in repeated strategic games. The panel met preregistered broad-reference condition-mean criteria in three of four repeated-game cells; the sole miss was 0.011 below the lower reference bound. Variation was strongly prompt-indexed, but its share depended on uncertainty assumptions: fixed-panel symmetric-Dirichlet sensitivities produced median between-prompt shares of 63%-71% under Jeffreys alpha=0.5 and 47%-53% under alpha=1, while finite-opportunity plug-in estimates were 85%-96%. Aggregate continuation-probability contrasts were +0.083 and +0.078, with conservative simultaneous 95% intervals [-0.171, +0.330] and [-0.181, +0.330]. The treatment jointly changed the continuation process and its textual representation. A separate wording-and-position operation shifted cooperation from 0/40 to 37/40 in the bare configuration, and a label conflict also revealed representation control. The original persona-level p13 result was not prospectively family-controlled, while a post-adjudication exact gate was structurally underpowered; p13 is therefore a replication target rather than a finding. External review exposed family-error, dependence, construct, and boundary-uncertainty defects, and zero-call reanalysis changed the interpretation without rewriting the historical record. The registered marginal criteria could be passed without precisely estimating the treatment-response object. A public capsule verifies 4,916 confirmatory Phase 3-5 runs with no live model calls. The results concern one fixed model-prompt panel and do not establish human substitutability.

Generative Synthetic Populations (GSP) -- the convergence of population synthesis, agent-based modelling, and LLM agents -- are attracting growing interest for urban simulation and institutional communication research. Before any GSP instrument is used on a real population, a more basic question must be answered: does it respond to stimuli of known valence in an ordered, replicable, group-structured way? We call this controllability. We ask not whether a synthetic population tracks humans, but whether it tracks itself: whether the latent structure we impose on it is recovered in its own responses. This internal-validity question is logically prior to any claim about external validity, just as characterising an instrument's response function must precede using it to test a theory. We report SIVE (Synthetic Instrument Validation Experiment): a fictional municipality (Montelago) with 120 synthetic personas of known latent structure, exposed to seven conditions spanning strongly positive to strongly negative institutional communications about a water network. Seven pre-registered criteria, evaluated across a temperature sweep, jointly assess fidelity, stability, noise floor, specificity, sensitivity, and ordering. All seven pass at every temperature. A central finding turns a calibration failure into a diagnostic success: a message designed as "weakly positive" was identified by the instrument as functionally negative, traced to unresolved problems, uncertainty, and institutional passivity in its text; a redesigned version restored the expected ordering and interacts with agents' latent trust in unanticipated ways. A noise sub-experiment shows the instrument's intrinsic noise is roughly half the cross-agent estimate and stable across temperatures. Individual trajectories reveal coherent micro-dynamics that summary statistics obscure. Full data are available via an interactive explorer.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as synthetic users, stand-ins for human respondents whose simulated answers feed product, policy, and market decisions. We ask when this substitution is valid and when it fails, and package the answer as an evaluation framework for intelligent synthetic-user systems. A single protocol, run across four models spanning two families and an 8B-to-frontier capability range, is applied to two independent domains of real human-response data: U.S. general social attitudes (General Social Survey) and cross-cultural values (World Values Survey). Every model is benchmarked against a suite of non-LLM baselines fit on held-out human data. Under demographic prompting and the survey-simulation protocols we test, two failures replicate across both domains, all four models, and both families. First, at the individual level no LLM beats even the strongest baseline; on cross-cultural values every model falls well below it, and the gap survives distance-aware and proper scoring. Second, models systematically over-determine demographics, treating identity as far more predictive of attitudes than it is among real people, a distortion present for nearly every question-group combination and robust to a coding-invariant measure. Neither failure is remedied by a larger, more capable model. A decision-impact analysis shows why this matters in practice: on a segment-targeting task the models inflate between-segment gaps two to fourfold, would direct a team to the wrong segment in half of U.S. and most cross-cultural cases, and manufacture segment splits that do not exist in real people. We make the cross-domain benchmark and the evaluation framework available on request, so that teams can determine in advance when synthetic-user evidence is safe for decision support and when it is not.