Cool. I would offer, as a working definition, that a thing is real if there is an aspect of it that has some kind of effect or influence on something that is not the thing in question, that there is some kind of relationship that can have "agency" regarding a second thing.

So Disneyland is real in the sense that it has motivation on students to get better grades, unreal, at least in terms of grades, if the student in question doesn't care about the "Disneyland reward".

To extrapolate, for some religious people, a deity can be real in that it has agency in their lives; but then confusion arises when trying to decide if that same deity has any agency when it comes to say, the universe's existence, as there may not be any agreed upon standard for making that assessment of "realness".

In this instance, I think considering reality in terms of ontology or some absolute criteria is not really how we humans make sense of what is real, that is, where what is real is what matters/has sway.