{
  "study_id": "NCT07133529",
  "agent": "framework",
  "run": 4,
  "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 participants with larger cortisol or subjective stress rises under uncertainty should increase intake more, because threat is priced heaviest and fear raises the weight of scarcity signals; low-stress-reactive women show little difference.",
  "claim_ids_used": ["PM-0585", "PM-0845", "PM-0321", "PM-0110", "PM-0113", "PM-0289", "PM-1278"],
  "rationale": "Withholding meal timing is a threat signal (possible scarcity), which the framework prices heavily (PM-0585, PM-0845), and desire grows as a deficiency gap while unfed (PM-0321), predicting more eating under uncertainty. But the manipulation is mild: fasted healthy women in a safe lab where food reliably arrives, so the threat writes shallow (PM-0110) and bodily hunger after an overnight fast dominates both visits (PM-0113). The effect may show on self-reported stress or craving rather than grams eaten (PM-0289, PM-1278). With n about 45 crossover, 28 primary outcomes and high buffet variance, a small positive d is likely but significance is uncertain."
}