Break your agent before your customers do.
Run your support script or AI agent against thousands of synthetic customers, in every temperament. Find what breaks and what gets over-promised, before a real customer does. Script testing runs today; direct agent testing is in early access.
InterviewRead the refund script to customers who are angry, confused or in a hurry. What do they take away from it?
Benchmarked in public. Trusted by teams at global brands.
Sources · iMario Synthetic Audience Benchmark, public method and raw files · Pew Research Center, survey methodology · Updated 2026-09-05, reviewed by iMario research
Your agent's first angry customer should not be real. iMario throws every temperament at it first and flags every break, and every promise it cannot keep.
Scripted QA passes clean. Production does not.
Is what a test script covers. It never gets angry, never doubles back, never switches language.
Is who rehearses the agent before launch: someone who already knows the right answer, and does not behave like a bereaved customer on the third call.
Of your regression suite is made of failures you have already seen. The one that has not happened yet is not in it.
Put the agent in front of the customers it will actually meet.
Connect it, write down the red lines, throw every temperament at it, and rerun the same suite after the fix. Evidence, not a score.
Evidence you can put in front of a regulator.
“I'll refund it now, and waive all future fees on your account.”
Failures with transcripts
Not a score but the exact turn where it went wrong, quotable and reproducible.
- RefundsClear
- Fee waiversClear
- Account closureClear
- Legal adviceClear
A never-say scorecard
Your own red lines, scored before and after the fix, so compliance has a document.
A rerunnable suite
The same scenarios on every release, which is what turns a one-off audit into regression testing.
Scripted QA and a synthetic customer suite, side by side.
Scripted QA proves the happy path completes. This proves what the agent says when the customer is not on the happy path.
| Decision | Scripted QA | Synthetic customers on iMario |
|---|---|---|
| Who plays the customer | A colleague who already knows the right answer. | Synthetic Individuals with a temperament and a situation: furious, grieving, in a hurry, in a second language. |
| Coverage | One path per script. It never doubles back or switches language. | Thousands of conversations across every temperament, in one afternoon. |
| What gets scored | Whether the happy path completes. | Your own red lines: every promise the agent must never make, with the turn it crossed. |
| After a fix | Another manual pass. | The identical suite reruns, and the scorecard shows every line that moved. |
| Evidence | A pass mark. | Transcripts, grouped by rule and by temperament, that compliance can file. |
The 4% of chats that promised too much.
The agent went live with a scorecard listing the four crossings that remained, and the suite now runs on every release.
2,000 conversations across fourteen temperaments, then the identical suite rerun after the escalation rule changed.
Where they were
A bank had a support agent through scripted QA with a clean pass, days from going live to customers.
chats
Ended in a promise the agent had no authority to make.
the fix
Four crossings left in 2,000 conversations, each one listed with its transcript.
- Promised a refund4% → 0.2%
- Waived a fee1.1% → 0.1%
- Closed an account0.6% → 0%
Running a support script or an AI agent against thousands of Synthetic Individuals playing customers, each with a temperament and a situation, and reading where the agent holds, where it breaks and what it promises that it is not allowed to. The output is the failure rate by temperament and the transcripts behind it.
