{
  "study_id": "NCT05047120",
  "agent": "framework",
  "run": 3,
  "p_primary_hypothesis_supported": 0.64,
  "effect_direction": "favours intervention",
  "effect_size_90pct_interval": {"low": 0.1, "high": 1.9, "metric": "Between-arm difference in 0-10 NRS pain change (positive = more pain reduction with HYP-CT)"},
  "moderator_prediction": "Higher-baseline-pain patients show larger session-level reductions (more room, more attention-capturing salience); nociceptive pain responds somewhat more than neuropathic, which the day contradicts more persistently.",
  "claim_ids_used": ["PM-0023", "PM-0369", "PM-1286", "PM-0232", "PM-0360", "PM-0132", "PM-0364", "PM-0333", "PM-0137", "PM-0337", "PM-0128", "PM-0092"],
  "rationale": "Hypnosis is the framework's paradigm backdoor: induction suspends the critical faculty so suggestions write deeper, and pain is a render-layer outcome reachable without argument. A PhD therapist at the bedside adds authority and rapport (two doors). Education is a proposition to an alert evaluator paying the normal tax. The first primary is the immediate pre-post session change, where acute impact dominates and the effect should be clearest; recordings condition a re-entry cue. Risks: n=88, attenuated attention in acute SCI, active comparator with a warm therapist, and if the 4-week weekly-average outcome decides, daily contradiction by ongoing neuropathic pain erodes the write, shrinking the gap."
}