{
  "study_id": "NCT07513337",
  "agent": "framework",
  "run": 5,
  "p_primary_hypothesis_supported": 0.33,
  "effect_direction": "null",
  "effect_size_90pct_interval": {"low": -0.06, "high": 0.14, "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's pricing is not outspent by prior experience; experienced users' harm beliefs are verified by their own use.",
  "claim_ids_used": ["PM-0080", "PM-0090", "PM-0110", "PM-0128", "PM-0133", "PM-0056", "PM-0596"],
  "rationale": "A single static ad viewed online is one attentive, audited exposure (the normal tax) with flat affect, which writes shallow. Harm of one-time use is an opinion-level belief, movable but here by a tiny cue: a strain word or effect claim differs from the control by one line of text. Fluency/legitimacy of a familiar strain label could nudge harm down slightly, and 'sedating' may nudge it up, diluting the pooled claim effect. With n about 3000 two main-effect tests have power only for differences near 0.1 on the 0-4 scale; I expect effects around 0.03-0.05, so most likely null, with two chances to cross significance."
}