{
  "study_id": "NCT05047120",
  "agent": "framework",
  "run": 5,
  "p_primary_hypothesis_supported": 0.66,
  "effect_direction": "favours intervention",
  "effect_size_90pct_interval": {"low": 0.1, "high": 2.0, "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 absolute within-session reductions (more room to move; the render layer is where the suggestion acts); nociceptive and neuropathic pain both respond acutely, with perhaps slightly more for pain whose rendering is less tied to ongoing tissue signal, but no reliable subgroup difference expected at n=88.",
  "claim_ids_used": ["PM-0023", "PM-0369", "PM-0132", "PM-1340", "PM-1286", "PM-0086", "PM-0232", "PM-0360", "PM-0128", "PM-0102", "PM-0137", "PM-0276"],
  "rationale": "The first primary is an immediate pre-post session pain drop, the outcome the framework expects hypnosis to move most: induction is a state change past the critical faculty, and suggestions act on render-layer felt pain. A PhD psychologist in the hospital room adds authority and rapport. Education is an argument to an alert evaluator paying the normal tax, so it gives little immediate relief. Repeated measures (8 sessions) add power despite n=88. Risks: a credible active comparator with the same therapist attention; acute SCI pain partly nociceptive and medication-driven; attrition in inpatient rehab; and if the weekly average at 4 weeks decides, daily contradiction by ongoing injury pain shrinks the effect."
}