{
  "study_id": "NCT07513337",
  "agent": "framework",
  "run": 2,
  "p_primary_hypothesis_supported": 0.3,
  "effect_direction": "null",
  "effect_size_90pct_interval": {"low": -0.08, "high": 0.15, "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 stack on cannabis is thin, so a label or claim is priced against little prior experience; experienced users' harm judgments are anchored by their own use and outweigh a single ad cue.",
  "claim_ids_used": ["PM-0056", "PM-0080", "PM-0090", "PM-0128", "PM-0129", "PM-0133", "PM-0596"],
  "rationale": "A single online ad viewed by an alert participant pays the normal tax: one small, audited deposit. Harm perception of one-time use is an opinion-level belief, which can move, but the manipulation is a single word (indica/sativa/hybrid) or a brief effect claim, a flat, low-impact cue with no backdoor. Strain labels add fluency and a whiff of product-specificity that might slightly lower perceived risk, but the control ad is otherwise identical, so the contrast is tiny. With ~250 per cell the main effects are powered for about 0.08-0.1 scale points; the framework predicts effects near or below that. Prior experience dominates pricing, so inexperienced users would move more."
}