{
  "study_id": "NCT07133529",
  "agent": "framework",
  "run": 1,
  "p_primary_hypothesis_supported": 0.3,
  "effect_direction": "favours intervention",
  "effect_size_90pct_interval": {"low": -0.2, "high": 0.55, "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 should eat more under uncertainty, because uncertain food availability is priced as threat and threat-primed receivers book it heaviest; low stress eaters may show null or reduced intake.",
  "claim_ids_used": ["PM-0585", "PM-0845", "PM-0321", "PM-0113", "PM-0128", "PM-0289", "PM-1278"],
  "rationale": "Withholding meal timing after a fast is a mild threat signal; threat reads fastest and weighs heaviest (PM-0585, PM-0845), and an unfed deficiency widens desire (PM-0321), so the framework leans toward more intake under uncertainty, with the body leading (PM-0113). But the manipulation is a single mild instruction to alert adults (the normal tax, PM-0128), the buffet ends the uncertainty, and with ~45 women and 28 primary outcomes the effect may land on adjacent measures (stress, craving, hunger ratings) rather than grams eaten (PM-0289, PM-1278). Expect a small positive d, likely under-powered; significance is less likely than not."
}