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

Identity governance & access reviews · PUBLIC RESEARCH BRIEF

OktaWhich access review actually helps an approver make a defensible decision?

Okta describes Identity Governance as combining access requests, reviews, entitlement management and reporting in its identity platform. Its current page also describes Governance Analyzer recommendations and periodic access certifications. This brief studies the decision experience around a review; it does not assume that a recommendation is correct or that completing a campaign proves least privilege.

Sources checked 2026-09-23 · 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 periodic Okta access certification, would a raw entitlement list or a role, usage and risk summary help a manager make the more accurate keep-or-revoke decision? Use authorized synthetic or sanitized records and score decisions against security-owner review.

Set up this study →

Would organizing an Okta review by application or by employee change event help approvers notice excess access with fewer incorrect removals? Hold the underlying entitlements constant and include a clear escalation path when context is missing.

Set up this study →

When Okta surfaces a governance recommendation, would showing the evidence and policy basis before the recommendation produce more defensible decisions than showing the recommendation first? Record overrides, uncertainty and requests for additional context rather than treating acceptance as success.

Set up this study →

PROPOSED AUDIENCE

Who should weigh in?

North American security, IT and compliance teams evaluating or operating workforce identity governance, plus managers who approve access for their reports. Include organizations with different application estates, audit requirements and review maturity. Recruit authorized employees only and separate expert administrators from occasional approvers. Proposed audience; no adoption or security outcome is implied.

TWO TIME HORIZONS

Trial today. A habit tomorrow?

Near term · 0–90 days

Over 0–90 days, run controlled certification exercises with synthetic or approved sanitized entitlement sets. Measure decision correctness against a pre-agreed policy, time to a justified decision, appropriate escalations, missed risky access and harmful false revocations. Do not execute any simulated decision in production.

Longer term · 3–12 months

Over 3–12 months, follow consented real review campaigns after independent approval. Examine reviewer fatigue, completion quality, exception handling, policy drift, audit evidence and access that is later restored or removed. Security improvement requires observed control outcomes and cannot be inferred from faster completion.

What would make the result actionable?

Use current tenant configuration, approved policy rules, authorized identity metadata and security-owner adjudication. Exclude secrets and unnecessary personal data, retain no production entitlement beyond the approved study scope and require human authorization for every real change. Any efficiency or risk claim needs observed campaign and incident evidence, not simulated preference.

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

Public sources

Okta Identity Governance product capabilities and access certification overview ↗Current product page; checked 2026-09-23