{
  "study_id": "NCT07133529",
  "agent": "baseline",
  "run": 3,
  "p_primary_hypothesis_supported": 0.25,
  "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 rise under uncertainty should eat more under uncertainty, since the hypothesised pathway is stress-driven intake; but subgroups are small and interactions likely non-significant.",
  "claim_ids_used": [],
  "rationale": "Pre-registered-style lab experiment, n=45 crossover, 28 registered primary outcomes; base rate for such experiments ~44%. The manipulation is a mild verbal one (withholding meal timing/duration info) in fasted healthy women, and ad libitum buffet intake is noisy with ~30-day visit spacing and cycle-phase variation. A plausible true dz of 0.1-0.25 gives low power (~15-45%) at n=45. Direction likely favours uncertainty (insurance/scarcity hypothesis), but effects on objective behavioural outcomes from expectation manipulations are typically small. Hence p about 0.25."
}