{
  "study_id": "NCT07513337",
  "agent": "baseline",
  "run": 1,
  "p_primary_hypothesis_supported": 0.3,
  "effect_direction": "null",
  "effect_size_90pct_interval": {"low": -0.08, "high": 0.12, "metric": "Mean difference in one-time-use harm perception, 0-4 scale, labelled/claimed ads vs the corresponding no-label/no-claim level (positive = lower perceived harm)"},
  "moderator_prediction": "Inexperienced users respond more: their harm perceptions are less anchored by personal experience, so strain labels and effect claims (cues of product familiarity/predictability) can shift them; experienced users already rate one-time harm near floor.",
  "claim_ids_used": [],
  "rationale": "Large factorial (n=3035, ~760 vs ~2280 for strain label, ~1010 vs ~2020 for claim) gives power to detect ~0.1-point shifts on a 0-4 scale (d~0.1). But the manipulation is a subtle single ad feature, and one-time-use harm is likely rated low with floor effects. Strain labels and effect claims mainly target expectancies, not risk; an energizing or sedating claim could even raise perceived risk for some. Single-exposure persuasion effects on attitudes are small; pre-registered experiments succeed ~44%, and the hypothesis requires a specific direction on one of five outcomes. Two chances at alpha 0.05 raise odds somewhat. Expect near-null effects, with a modest chance a label lowers harm significantly."
}