What is synthetic research?

Synthetic research uses AI-powered personas that simulate how real buyers, customers, or market segments would respond to your research questions. It produces directional signal — insights to sharpen your hypotheses — before you invest in real primary fieldwork. Gather Synthetic runs AI-moderated interviews across any audience archetype in minutes, not weeks.

How is synthetic research different from real research?

Synthetic research generates directional signal using AI personas, while real primary research collects data from actual people. Synthetic pre-research is faster (minutes vs. weeks), cheaper, and ideal for hypothesis generation and stakeholder alignment. It is not statistically valid and should be used to focus and prioritize real fieldwork, not replace it. Gather offers both synthetic pre-research and real AI-moderated interviews with actual respondents.

What types of research can Gather Synthetic run?

Gather Synthetic supports 14 study types: Brand Perception, Product Feedback, Concept Testing, Competitive Intelligence, CX/NPS Deep Dive, Messaging & Claims Testing, Win/Loss Analysis, Market Segmentation, Pricing Research, Ad & Creative Testing, Customer Journey Mapping, Feature Prioritization, Churn & Retention Analysis, and Audience Discovery.

How much does synthetic research cost?

The first 5 synthetic interviews are free. After that, B2C audience interviews cost $0.50 each and B2B audience interviews cost $5.00 each. There is no subscription required.

How accurate is synthetic research?

Synthetic research is directional, not statistically accurate. Confidence scores reflect internal AI response consistency, not statistical significance. Quantitative projections carry a ±15–20% margin of error. Treat findings as educated hypotheses to validate with real primary research, not as definitive measurements.

← All brands

Cross-functional project setup & workflows · PUBLIC RESEARCH BRIEF

JiraWhich first project setup becomes a habit instead of a workaround?

Atlassian offers Jira templates across software development, marketing, design, sales, operations, service management, HR, legal, IT operations and finance. Jira workflows represent statuses and transitions and can be adapted to how a team defines its process. This brief studies the setup that teams can actually sustain, not whether one universal workflow is best.

Sources checked 2026-09-22 · Simulation results not yet generated

Test a question in Gather ↗Explore fictional demo →

CHANGE ONE THING. LEARN WHAT MATTERS.

Three questions for the GTM team.

For a cross-functional team opening a new Jira project, would a function-specific ready-made template or a minimal shared project template produce clearer ownership after the first week? Give both groups the same work and evaluate correct assignment, status use and stakeholder comprehension.

Set up this study →

Would teams learn a Jira workflow better by starting with a preconfigured set of statuses and transitions or by defining those elements after walking through one real project example? Record later workarounds and skipped transitions rather than relying on setup satisfaction.

Set up this study →

For occasional Jira contributors, would a short guided task inside the project or an administrator-led feature tour better prepare them to update work without help? Use the same project and test completion again after a delay.

Set up this study →

PROPOSED AUDIENCE

Who should weigh in?

North American teams at organizations with 100 or more employees that are starting a new Jira project or replacing an informal tracker. Recruit project leads, frequent contributors, cross-functional stakeholders and Jira administrators from at least two functions. Include new and experienced Jira users. Proposed audience only.

TWO TIME HORIZONS

Trial today. A habit tomorrow?

Near term · 0–90 days

Over 0–90 days, compare matched new projects with similar work volume and governance needs. Measure setup time, correctly classified work, ownership clarity, help requests, duplicate tracking and changes made to the initial template or workflow. Do not infer delivery speed from ticket movement alone.

Longer term · 3–12 months

Over 3–12 months, examine whether the project structure remains usable as teams, work types and reporting needs change. Track parallel spreadsheets, abandoned fields, workflow exceptions, administrator maintenance and successful reuse on a second project. Seat activity is not the same as durable process adoption.

What would make the result actionable?

Use authorized project configurations, audit history and structured observations with no confidential ticket content published. Independent reviewers should score whether status, ownership and next action are clear. Any efficiency case requires observed administration, training, migration and rework costs, not preference for a demo.

A Gather simulation returns hypothetical customer reactions. Quantifying revenue, traffic or retention needs actual business inputs and validation against observed behavior.

Public sources

Jira ready-made templates across teams and work types ↗Current product page; checked 2026-09-22

Jira workflow statuses and transitions ↗Current product page; checked 2026-09-22