The result is only interesting if the subjects were given the information first, and then asked whether they could predict their response better from that information than from someone else’s experience.

Actually they were asked to predict which type of information would allow them to make the most accurate response *after* the date.

And, equally importantly, after being shown an example of the “simulationist” information. To quote the paper:

Next, the second woman was escorted to the
dating room, had a speed date, and then reported
how much she enjoyed it (on the enjoyment
scale). This report is hereinafter referred to as her
affective report. The second woman also reported
whether she believed that simulation information
or surrogation information would have allowed
her to make the more accurate prediction
about the speed date she had and about a speed
date that she might have in the future.

That’s the crucial piece of information I wanted.

The experiments are designed so that the experience provides much more information than the summary given to the subjects pre-experience does.

If anything, it’s the opposite. In the first study, the experiences of the another woman amounted to just three of how much she liked the man, how much she wanted to befriend the man, and how much she wanted to have a romantic relationship with the man. These were made by marking three continuous 100 mm scales whose endpoints were labeled not at all and very much. Compare that to the profiles filled out by the men themselves.
The difference was even starker for the second experiment. For each personality type, there was only one rating, again on a linear scale from very bad to very good. In contrast, the full descriptions (say for personality type C) said: “These people are fairly competent and well-adjusted but have few qualities that distinguish them from others. They are generally well-liked, partly because they do not pose a threat to the competencies of others. These people tend to succeed in a wide variety of careers but, because of their ability to get along well with others, mostly excel in jobs requiring them to be part of a team rather than take on individual responsibilities. In their personal relationships, they will sacrifice their beliefs because they seek contentment rather than challenge or excitement. Their romantic relationships are fairly successful as long as they are with a person of the same type. Divorce rates do not differ substantially from the national average in this group and when long-term relationships end it is usually because the person’s partner has found a more suitable alternative. These people tend to have a realistic picture of both their talents and their limitations and thus tend to structure their tasks quite appropriately.”

The result is only interesting if the subjects were given the information first, and then asked whether they could predict their response better from that information than from someone else’s experience.

Actually they were asked to predict which type of information would allow them to make the most accurate response *after* the date.