{
  "study_id": "NCT07133529",
  "agent": "baseline",
  "run": 2,
  "p_primary_hypothesis_supported": 0.22,
  "effect_direction": "favours intervention",
  "effect_size_90pct_interval": {"low": -0.2, "high": 0.45, "metric": "Cohen's d (within-subject, crossover), uncertainty minus certainty in buffet intake"},
  "moderator_prediction": "Stress eaters (high SSES) and those with larger subjective stress/cortisol rises under uncertainty may eat somewhat more, since uncertainty-as-stressor effects on intake concentrate in stress-eaters; expect an exploratory, likely non-significant interaction given n~45.",
  "claim_ids_used": [],
  "rationale": "Mild manipulation (withholding meal timing/duration) in a single lab session with an objective intake outcome, both conditions after an overnight fast so hunger dominates intake. Buffet intake is highly variable; with ~45 women, 80% power needs dz near 0.43, while a realistic effect is dz 0.1-0.2. Objective outcomes of expectation-type manipulations tend to be small; pre-registered psychology base rate ~44%, adjusted down for power, a weak manipulation, and 28 co-primary outcomes diluting focus. Direction plausibly favours uncertainty (insurance/scarcity hypothesis), but a null is most likely."
}