I don’t think this is helpful at all.
You can define existence, truth and reality as identical for simplicity, but you lose out on utility from all the nuances that you can get if you define them differently.
Consider Popper’s pluralism of existence across 3 worlds: physical stuff, mental stuff inspired from the physical, and structured concepts inspired by the mental. You might say a spade that you’re picking up is real because it has a physical manifestation, but an imagined, dreamed or hallucinated spade isn’t real even though it exists mentally - and these definitions give you extra explanatory power through differentiating between existence and reality. You might say that the fact that you are holding such a spade, if you are, is true, but the fact that you are holding 2 spades is false, if you’re not - even if you are maybe imagining that you are holding a 2nd spade in your other hand. This differentiates between existence and truth by validating the existence of falsity in the mental world if not the physical - which can apply to both the real or the not-real.
Perhaps you would rather step away from this common way of using the words in question in favour of a less efficient way of using them - by saying that it exists, it is real and it is true that you are holding a physical manifestation of a spade, not holding an imagined spade, and the imagined spade exists as an imagined spade, and it is both real and true that this is the case. In this case you would just swapped one way of explaining the same thing with another one that tends to require more words to explain: semantics. You would have gained simplicity in definition at the cost of efficiency, in order to neither gain or lose any explanatory power. I would simply ask: what’s the point?
We all know that you aren’t going to run into fictional characters in the street, but you can either apply Occam’s Razor to the words you use to describe their existence, reality and truth - or not, not that Occam’s Razor is objectively mandatory…
I think this whole thread is turning into a bit of a mess over what words to choose to describe what we all know are identical things.