{
  "study_id": "NCT07133529",
  "agent": "framework",
  "run": 2,
  "p_primary_hypothesis_supported": 0.27,
  "effect_direction": "favours intervention",
  "effect_size_90pct_interval": {"low": -0.2, "high": 0.5, "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 should eat more, since withheld meal timing reads as a threat signal that fear makes credible and that prices the unfed appetite gap higher; low stress eaters may show null or reduced intake.",
  "claim_ids_used": ["PM-0585", "PM-0845", "PM-0321", "PM-0110", "PM-0092", "PM-0289"],
  "rationale": "The framework reads withheld meal timing as a threat cue: threat weighs heaviest (PM-0585), fear makes scarcity credible (PM-0845), and desire widens while unfed (PM-0321), so direction favours more eating under uncertainty. But the manipulation is mild: simply not disclosing timing in a lab after an overnight fast, where both conditions end at an ample buffet. Mild signals write shallow (PM-0110, PM-0092), and the effect may land on adjacent outcomes such as stress, craving or hunger ratings rather than grams eaten (PM-0289). With about 45 women in a crossover and noisy ad libitum intake, a small positive d is likely but significance is uncertain."
}