{
  "study_id": "NCT07407595",
  "agent": "framework",
  "run": 5,
  "p_primary_hypothesis_supported": 0.4,
  "effect_direction": "favours control",
  "effect_size_90pct_interval": {"low": -1.0, "high": 0.5, "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, giving a heavier write.",
  "claim_ids_used": ["PM-0585", "PM-0845", "PM-0844", "PM-0601", "PM-0124", "PM-0372", "PM-1286", "PM-0289"],
  "rationale": "Framework: threat weighs heaviest and fear/emotional priming bypass the check, so an authoritative pain-expectation message should write a real anticipatory state; belief reaching physiology is a level-4 extension (Mesmer precedent), weaker than felt outcomes. Outcomes may move on an adjacent measure (HRV, SICI) rather than the named one. General knowledge: threat-of-pain paradigms tend to suppress corticospinal excitability, so a decrease in the expectation group is the likelier sign. But n=44, unmasked, noisy TMS I/O curves, and a single verbal manipulation make a significant group x time effect uncertain; multiple I/O parameters and two time points raise the chance something reaches p<0.05. Moderation by catastrophizing/fear predicted, though underpowered."
}