{
  "study_id": "NCT04312269",
  "agent": "framework",
  "run": 5,
  "p_primary_hypothesis_supported": 0.2,
  "effect_direction": "favours intervention",
  "effect_size_90pct_interval": {"low": -0.35, "high": 0.9, "metric": "Between-group difference in WMFT change (time-based score), Cohen's d (positive = more improvement with TMR)"},
  "moderator_prediction": "All-phase TMR should outperform SWS-only TMR: the framework holds that deep sleep resembles the drip, where renders are nearly weightless, while sleep thresholds (captured by all-stage cueing) are the installer's quadrant.",
  "claim_ids_used": ["PM-0095", "PM-0096", "PM-0129", "PM-0130", "PM-0132", "PM-0333", "PM-0364", "PM-0851", "PM-0104", "PM-0061"],
  "rationale": "The framework says reactivation strengthens what attentive training already stored (each retrieval re-books; no render exceeds the library), and cues paired with training carry the entry, so direction favours TMR. Daily MyoCI practice supplies the daytime use that promotes consolidated entries. But cues in slow-wave sleep resemble the drip, where single exposures book almost nothing, and the outcome is a level-4 motor function measure, not a felt state. With about 17 per arm across four arms, a chronic moderate-severe stroke population and a noisy timed WMFT, a modest true effect will probably not reach significance against sham. The effect is expected to be small and positive, and the primary contrast is likely underpowered."
}