AI Error Tolerance & Recovery Experience Survey
Measures user experiences with AI errors, recovery preferences, and resulting trust impact. Designed for AI product teams seeking to prioritize reliability improvements and reduce error-driven churn.
Sample questions
A preview of what’s in the template. Every question is editable before you launch.
Have you used any AI-powered product or feature in the last 30 days?
- Yes
- No
In the last 30 days, did you encounter any AI output that you would consider a mistake or error?
- Yes
- No
- Not sure
How tolerant are you of occasional mistakes in AI-generated outputs?
When an AI tool makes a mistake, how important is it to you that the recovery process is fast?
After successfully recovering from an AI mistake, how confident do you feel about continuing to use the AI tool?
Based on your responses in this survey, is there anything else you would like to share about your experiences with AI errors, recovery, or trust? (Please do not include personal data.)
What is your age group?
- 18–24
- 25–34
- 35–44
- 45–54
- 55–64
- 65+
- Prefer not to say
Thank you for completing this survey! Your anonymous feedback will be used to improve AI error handling and recovery experiences.
Which of the following AI product categories have you used most frequently in the last 30 days?
- Writing assistant (e.g., drafting, rewriting)
- Code assistant (e.g., coding, debugging)
- Image or video generation
- Search with AI-generated answers
- Customer support chatbot
- Productivity suite with AI (docs, slides, email)
- Data analysis or BI assistant
- Other
Approximately how many distinct AI mistakes did you notice in the last 30 days?
- 1–2
- 3–5
- 6–10
- 11–20
- More than 20
At approximately what error rate would you consider stopping use of an AI feature?
- Less than 1% of interactions
- 1–2%
- 3–5%
- 6–10%
- More than 10%
- Not sure
Please rank the following recovery features from most helpful (1) to least helpful (6) when recovering from an AI mistake.
- Ability to retry with a revised prompt
- Step-by-step guided correction
- Clear explanation of what went wrong
- Access to a help article or tips
- Live chat with a support agent
- Community forum or peer support
Overall, how much do you trust AI-powered features to produce accurate and reliable outputs?
We'd like to understand your experience with AI errors in a bit more depth. An AI moderator will ask you a couple of follow-up questions based on your responses.
What is your gender?
- Woman
- Man
- Non-binary
- Self-describe (please specify)
- Prefer not to say
How frequently do you use AI-powered features in a typical week?
- Less than once a week
- 1–2 times a week
- 3–5 times a week
- About once a day
- Multiple times a day
Which of the following types of mistakes did you encounter? Select all that apply.
- Factual inaccuracy
- Irrelevant or off-topic output
- Biased or unsafe content
- Hallucinated references or sources
- Misinterpreted my instructions
- Formatting or structure issues
- Tool or plugin execution failed
- Other (please specify)
When you receive an unsatisfactory AI output, what is your first-choice method for recovering?
- Retry with a better prompt
- Use a step-by-step guided fix
- Consult a help article or tips
- Chat with a support agent
- Search a community forum
- Other (please specify)
Over the next 90 days, how do you expect the reliability of AI tools to change?
In which region do you primarily reside?
- Africa
- Asia
- Europe
- Middle East
- North America
- Oceania
- South America
- Prefer not to say
How severe was the single most impactful AI mistake you encountered in the last 30 days?
To what extent do you agree with the following statement: 'AI tools are transparent about when they might be wrong.'
What is your highest level of education?
- High school or less
- Some college or associate degree
- Bachelor's degree
- Master's degree
- Doctorate
- Prefer not to say
Please briefly describe the most impactful AI mistake you encountered. What happened, and what was the effect on your work or task? (Do not include any personal data.)
To what extent do you agree with the following statement: 'When an AI makes a mistake, it is clearly communicated to me.'
What is your current employment status?
- Employed full-time
- Employed part-time
- Self-employed
- Student
- Unemployed
- Retired
- Prefer not to say
To what extent do you agree with the following statement: 'AI providers are actively working to reduce errors in their products.'
What’s included
AI follow-ups
Adaptive probes on open-ended answers that pull out detail a static form would miss.
Attention checks
Built-in safeguards against rushed answers and low-quality respondents.
AI-drafted copy
Wording, ordering, and branching written by the AI — tuned to your research goal.
Auto report
Themes, quotes, and a plain-English summary write themselves once responses come in.
Ready to launch?
Open this template in the editor. Every part is yours to change before the first respondent sees it.
Related templates
More studies from the same category.
Generative AI Trust, Safety & Guardrail Preferences Survey
Measures consumer trust in generative AI tools, perceived safety risks, transparency expectations, and guardrail preferences to inform responsible AI product design and policy.
View templateOn-Device AI Training: Consumer Trust & Privacy Perceptions
Measures consumer awareness, trust, privacy concerns, and adoption intentions regarding on-device AI training. Designed for product, UX, and privacy teams seeking to understand how users perceive and evaluate local AI learning features.
View templateAI Transparency, Control & Recourse Assessment
Measures user attitudes toward AI transparency, desired controls, and recourse expectations. Designed for product teams assessing trust gaps and prioritizing AI governance improvements.
View templateData Labeling QA, Bias & Instruction Clarity Audit
An operational audit survey for data labeling teams, measuring instruction clarity, bias mitigation practices, QA rigor, and workflow bottlenecks over the last 30 days. Designed for labelers, reviewers, and QA leads.
View templateAR Virtual Try-On Realism & Purchase Confidence Study
Measures perceived realism, fit accuracy, and purchase confidence for augmented reality try-on features. Designed for e-commerce UX researchers seeking to identify AR experience gaps that drive returns and reduce conversion.
View templateAI Model Card Usability & Developer Trust Survey
Measures how ML/AI practitioners engage with model cards, evaluate documented limitations, and how documentation quality shapes trust and adoption decisions across deployment contexts.
View template