{
  "study_id": "NCT07407595",
  "agent": "framework",
  "run": 1,
  "p_primary_hypothesis_supported": 0.35,
  "effect_direction": "favours control",
  "effect_size_90pct_interval": {"low": -0.95, "high": 0.45, "metric": "Cohen's d for the between-group difference in change in excitability from baseline to post-cream (positive = excitability increases more, or falls less, in the pain-expectation group)"},
  "moderator_prediction": "Higher pain catastrophizing / kinesiophobia participants respond more: fear raises the credibility and weight of the threat message, and aroused receivers mint larger manas, so the anticipatory write is heavier in them.",
  "claim_ids_used": ["PM-0585", "PM-0845", "PM-0601", "PM-0124", "PM-0372", "PM-0086", "PM-0289"],
  "rationale": "The framework predicts threat information is priced fastest and heaviest, especially from an authoritative experimenter, so a pain-expectation instruction should write a real anticipatory state. But the outcome is a level-4 motor-physiology biomarker (MEP I/O curves in a hand muscle), which the framework expects to move less than felt symptoms, and an adjacent outcome (HRV, apprehension) may move instead. General knowledge: pain anticipation tends to produce motor inhibition (lower MEPs), but n=44 split 22/22 with noisy between-subject TMS I/O parameters gives low power for a group x time interaction; multiple parameters and timepoints add some flexibility. Net: a modest negative effect, probably non-significant."
}