{
  "study_id": "NCT04312269",
  "agent": "framework",
  "run": 3,
  "p_primary_hypothesis_supported": 0.17,
  "effect_direction": "favours intervention",
  "effect_size_90pct_interval": {"low": -0.35, "high": 0.8, "metric": "Between-group difference in WMFT change (time-based score), Cohen's d (positive = more improvement with TMR)"},
  "moderator_prediction": "All-phase TMR at least as good as, likely better than, SWS-only: all-phase cues include lighter stages and sleep-wake thresholds, the installer's quadrant, whereas slow-wave cues resemble the drip and book little per exposure.",
  "claim_ids_used": ["PM-0095", "PM-0129", "PM-0130", "PM-0132", "PM-0333", "PM-0364", "PM-0104", "PM-0851", "PM-1353"],
  "rationale": "The framework reads TMR as re-booking entries already stored by attentive daytime MyoCI practice (PM-0095, PM-0333, PM-0364), so direction favours TMR, and the cued skill is enacted daily, which promotes it (PM-0851, PM-1353). But the added render per cue is small: sleep cues, especially in deep sleep, resemble the drip and book little (PM-0129, PM-0130), while both arms receive identical, heavy daytime training that dominates WMFT change. With ~17 per arm across four arms in chronic stroke, an incremental d near 0.2-0.3 is unlikely to reach p<0.05. Probability of a significant primary contrast is low; all-phase cueing, reaching thresholds (PM-0132), should do best among TMR arms."
}