Where synthetic testing fits, and where it does not.
A US panel measures a population. Mirubiki tests the instrument before you pay for that measurement. The two answer different questions, and the confusion between them is what makes synthetic research look unreliable.
Same questionnaire, two jobs
What Mirubiki does
Finds items that do not measure what they claim, wording that pushes an answer, scales that collapse, and routing that loses a segment. A run costs minutes.
What a fielded panel does
Produces the number you report: incidence, share, margin of error, on a sample drawn from the population you are addressing.
Where they meet
Pretest with Mirubiki, fix the instrument, then field the corrected version. The panel stops paying for mistakes the questionnaire already contained.
What we do not claim
Mirubiki does not replace a probability sample, and does not produce a margin of error. It is a pretesting instrument: its output is a diagnosis of the questionnaire, not an estimate of the population.
The US panel is calibrated on public survey data. Where the data does not support a segment, the answer is an abstention, not a guess.
Try it on a questionnaire you already fielded
The clearest test is a study whose results you know. Run the same items through Mirubiki and compare the diagnosis with what the field actually returned.