{
  "study_id": "NCT07513337",
  "agent": "framework",
  "run": 3,
  "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/claim cue writes at higher amplitude; experienced users' harm beliefs are verified by their own use and barely move.",
  "claim_ids_used": ["PM-0056", "PM-0080", "PM-0128", "PM-0123", "PM-0125", "PM-0130", "PM-0133", "PM-0138", "PM-0145"],
  "rationale": "A single static ad viewed online by an alert survey-taker is one small deposit paying the normal tax (PM-0056, PM-0128); a strain label or effect claim is a minor cue within the ad, near a hidden single frame that books almost nothing (PM-0130). Labels could act weakly as authority/aesthetic gate cues lending pharmaceutical legitimacy (PM-0123, PM-0125), lowering harm slightly, but 'energizing' may add arousal-threat readings. Harm of one-time use is an opinion already anchored by prior experience (PM-0080, PM-0145), especially in experienced users (PM-0138); inexperienced users are thinner stacks (PM-0133). With n~3000, only ~0.08 points is detectable; two shots at significance give modest odds."
}