Thanks for that link, Georgina. I quote from that article, amongst several other quotable Fuchsisms, "As QBism understands a quantum measurement outcome, it's personal. No one else can see it." I see this quote as problematic as a description of experimental practice. In days of Bohr, indeed someone looked at a meter needle and no one else looked, but now it's almost universally a computer that looks and anyone can look at what the computer recorded.
Still the best example (IMO, it's nontrivial, at the right level for QBism in that it's modeled by a low-dimensional Hilbert space, but starting to be a little old) is the collection of datasets generated by Gregor Weihs in the experiment described at length in his thesis and in PRL (for which see https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810080). Anyone can look at a classical copy of the same data Gregor looked at (he's become unwilling to let just anyone analyze the data, but for a few years it was freely available), which for each run of the experiment consists of two lists of times at which Alice's and Bob's detectors, 400 meters from each other in the apparatus, switched from current off to current on (plus which detector current changed and the state of the polarizer at the time).
If one feels that one has to think in terms of wave function collapses, Gregor didn't cause any collapses, perhaps we could say that he set up a computer to cause some collapses. We can, however, consider the circuits of Gregor's experiment in more detail, asking what the detector signals would have looked like at the picoAmp and picosecond scale, say (Terabytes of data per second), in which there would be identifiable changes of state --collapses, much less data to record-- but changes of the detector current are nonetheless rather closer to continuous --not so much collapses.
There is a question how to manage the relationship between the experimental datasets and the expected values that are generated by Hilbert space models, where we might choose Bayesian methods as one particular approach, but there are many ways in statistics to estimate model parameters.
Someone might feel like responding substantively here on FQXi? Is there other literature on QBism that discusses experiments in a more world-like-way than Chris Fuchs uses here?