0%
completed
0
/
fields populated.
Please submit your completed form.
AI Client Simulator User Experience Survey
The purpose of this survey is to collect your feedback and expectations on online learning tools. These invaluable insights will significantly support us in future product improvements. All responses are highly confidential and shared only internally. Thank you so much for sharing your time to fill this survey.
What is your primary professional role?
*
Educator
Data Science & Analytics Industry Practitioner
Public service
Other Industry Professional
AI, Data Science & Analytics Student
Other Student
Other
Full Name
*
Title
*
Organization
*
Email
*
Back
Next
About Your Experience
To ensure the simulator is effectively challenging your ability to move through the entire framework, please provide a brief insight into the Information and Persona fidelity of the AI’s responses across the S.P.O.T.© stages:
Information Fidelity Overall, when you successfully triggered a piece of hidden information (e.g., data gaps, stakeholder motivations), how would you rate the quality of the response?
*
Level 4: High-Fidelity & Contextual The response was deeply rooted in the persona’s specific bias and role. The information was nuanced, technically accurate to the scenario, and directly applicable to my S.P.O.T.© framing.
Level 3: Authentic but Surface-Level The response felt like it came from the correct stakeholder, but the information was a bit "safe" or lacked the gritty detail needed to fully map the business problem without further heavy prodding.
Level 2: Generic / "Chatbot" Style The answer felt like a standard generative AI response. While factually consistent, it lost the "persona" feel and provided information in a way that felt like a summary rather than a realistic client interaction.
Level 1: Misaligned or Hallucinated The response was either inconsistent with the provided company documents/data dictionary or the persona broke character entirely (e.g., an Executive suddenly discussing low-level Python library constraints).
S.P.O.T.© Workshop Execution Matrix Please rate how effectively the AI personas allowed you to execute each stage of the framework on a scale of 1 (Ineffective) to 5 (Highly Effective).
*
Rows
NA
Neither effectively nor ineffectively
Somewhat effectively
Somewhat ineffectively
Very effectively
Very ineffectively
O: OBSERVATION - How well did the AI simulate data readiness? Did it reveal data gaps or quality issues when probed?
P: PROCESS - Did the personas provide enough detail on workflows and decision points to help you find the "bottleneck"?
S: SCOPE - Was the AI able to discuss high-level business goals and reveal specific stakeholder motivations for the project?
T: TRANSMIT - Did the personas react realistically when you attempted to summarize the problem.
Trigger Accuracy: Across any of the four stages (S, P, O, or T), did the AI successfully "gate" information? In other words, did the personas withhold specific insights until you asked a question that demonstrated the correct framing or technical depth
*
Back
Next
Final Questions
Your responses above tells us if the tool works; your comments here tell us how to make it better. We are looking for those specific moments where the AI either perfectly mirrored a real-world client or where it broke character and provided information too easily.
In the market, what other products and services are similar to ours?
If you have further context for any of your previous answers, please provide it here.
Have anything to show us? Feel free to upload screenshots of chat logs, error messages, or documents that illustrate your interaction with the AI client simulator
Browse Files
Drag and drop files here
Choose a file
Cancel
of
Submit
Should be Empty: