{
  "study_id": "NCT07513337",
  "agent": "baseline",
  "run": 5,
  "p_primary_hypothesis_supported": 0.28,
  "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 slightly more, since they have weaker prior beliefs about cannabis products and rely more on ad cues; experienced users' one-time-use harm ratings sit near the floor.",
  "claim_ids_used": [],
  "rationale": "Large factorial (n=3035, ~250/cell) gives good power for main effects (detectable difference about 0.08 points on 0-4 if SD about 1). But a strain label or energizing/sedating claim is a subtle cue with no obvious harm-reduction message; one-time-use harm is already rated low, which compresses variance. Energizing claims could even raise perceived risk (anxiety), and sedating ones could go either way. Brief ad-exposure survey outcomes do move on items addressed directly, but harm is not addressed here. Two chances (strain, claim) raise the odds somewhat; pre-registered-experiment base rate about 44%, adjusted down for indirect link to the outcome."
}