{
  "study_id": "NCT07513337",
  "agent": "framework",
  "run": 4,
  "p_primary_hypothesis_supported": 0.28,
  "effect_direction": "null",
  "effect_size_90pct_interval": {"low": -0.08, "high": 0.10, "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 they lean on cheap label cues to interpret the product, while experienced users price the ad against their own use history.",
  "claim_ids_used": ["PM-0080", "PM-0090", "PM-0116", "PM-0128", "PM-0152", "PM-0605"],
  "rationale": "A single online ad seen once by an alert survey respondent pays the normal tax: one small deposit [PM-0128]. Harm perception is an opinion-level belief and can move [PM-0080], but a strain word or an effect claim is a thin cue next to the category signal 'cannabis', which is identical in every arm. Vocabulary like indica/sativa shapes expectancies [PM-0116] more than it shapes risk. An energizing or sedating claim may even signal potency and raise harm. Priors dominate pricing [PM-0090, PM-0152], with novices leaning on cheap cues [PM-0605]. With about 750-1000 per reference cell and two chances to reach significance, small shifts could still come out significant, but the most likely result is a near-null or mixed direction."
}