The Reuters/Ipsos poll (conducted April 15–20, released April 24, 2026) directly confirms that 77% of registered voters said Trump bears at least a fair amount of responsibility for the recent rise in gas prices — matching Psaki's stated figure, attributed population, pollster, and timing exactly. The claim's 'blame' language is a minor compression of the poll's 'at least a fair amount of responsibility' wording, but this shorthand is used by Reuters itself in its own wire headline and adopted uniformly across all reporting outlets; it does not reverse or distort the directional meaning for a reasonable viewer. Per the TRUE definition, 'immaterial imprecisions… do not disqualify,' and the responsibility-to-blame compression qualifies as immaterial given Reuters' own identical usage. The dual 77% data point (fuel price concern vs. responsibility attribution) presents a potential conflation risk, but Psaki correctly applied the figure to the responsibility/blame question, not the concern question — no misapplication occurred. The attribution to 'Reuters' rather than 'Reuters/Ipsos' is standard journalistic shorthand and not materially misleading. The 'last week' framing is accurate: the poll was released April 24, 2026, one week prior to the May 1 broadcast. Minimum source requirements for TRUE are met: the Reuters wire constitutes a Tier 3 primary institutional release (direct pollster output), confirmed by multiple independent Tier 4 outlets. (Boundary note: the TRUE/MOSTLY TRUE line was evaluated — per methodology, MOSTLY TRUE requires an 'identifiable inaccuracy that does not reverse directional meaning'; the responsibility→blame compression does not constitute such an inaccuracy because it reflects the pollster's own headline characterization and preserves meaning without distortion.)

Methodology note: The TRUE/MOSTLY TRUE boundary in polling claims involving question-wording compression deserves documentation. When a pollster's own headline characterization uses the same simplified language as the speaker under review ('blame'), the compression cannot simultaneously be an 'identifiable inaccuracy' disqualifying a TRUE verdict — to hold otherwise would create an asymmetry where a speaker is penalized for adopting the pollster's own framing. The EDGE_CASE designation is appropriate here precisely because this interpretive question sits at a defined category boundary, not because the evidence is ambiguous.