{
  "study_id": "NCT07133529",
  "agent": "framework",
  "run": 3,
  "p_primary_hypothesis_supported": 0.3,
  "effect_direction": "favours intervention",
  "effect_size_90pct_interval": {"low": -0.2, "high": 0.5, "metric": "Cohen's d (within-subject, crossover) for uncertainty minus certainty in buffet intake"},
  "moderator_prediction": "Stress eaters (high SSES) and those with larger subjective stress/cortisol rises under uncertainty eat more, because threat is priced heaviest and the installed scarcity assumption is triggered most in threat-primed receivers.",
  "claim_ids_used": ["PM-0706", "PM-0710", "PM-0697", "PM-0585", "PM-0845", "PM-0601", "PM-0128", "PM-1278"],
  "rationale": "The framework treats scarcity as an installed base-layer assumption that drives acquisition beyond need (PM-0706, PM-0710), and threat is priced heaviest (PM-0585), so withheld meal timing after a fast should nudge intake upward. But the manipulation is mild: omitting schedule information in a lab where food is plainly available is weak, low-impact input to alert adults (PM-0128), competing with hunger's own strong somatic signal (PM-0697). With ~45 women, 28 outcomes and high buffet-intake variability, a small positive d is likely but significance is uncertain. Anxious or stress-eating receivers should respond more (PM-0845, PM-0601)."
}