{
  "study_id": "NCT07513337",
  "agent": "framework",
  "run": 1,
  "p_primary_hypothesis_supported": 0.33,
  "effect_direction": "null",
  "effect_size_90pct_interval": {"low": -0.08, "high": 0.14, "metric": "Mean difference in one-time-use harm perception, 0-4 scale, labelled/claimed ads vs no-label/no-claim level (positive = lower perceived harm)"},
  "moderator_prediction": "Inexperienced users respond more: thin stack on the topic, so a label or effect claim is priced higher; experienced users' harm priors come from their own use and outweigh a single ad.",
  "claim_ids_used": ["PM-0080", "PM-0128", "PM-0090", "PM-0110", "PM-0254", "PM-0605", "PM-0133"],
  "rationale": "One ad, seen once online by an alert respondent, is a single mild deposit paying the normal tax. Flat content writes shallow. Harm of one-time use is a surface opinion that already sits low among adults in legal states, so the floor limits movement. A strain label or effect claim presupposes a known, controlled product, and the label works as a cheap interpreter for untrained receivers, which could shave a little off perceived harm. But the same claims (especially sedating or energizing) could also signal potency. With about 2,000 vs 1,000 per contrast, differences near 0.08 are detectable. So there are two chances at a small effect, but the most likely result is a near-null difference."
}