{
  "study_id": "NCT07611422",
  "agent": "framework",
  "run": 4,
  "p_primary_hypothesis_supported": 0.2,
  "effect_direction": "favours intervention",
  "effect_size_90pct_interval": {"low": -0.15, "high": 0.5, "metric": "Cohen's d for positive-information vs neutral-information on PSS-10 at 4 weeks (positive = less stress with positive information)"},
  "moderator_prediction": "Cold-shower participants respond more to the positive rationale: the cold exposure is an arousing bodily render that the rationale can price as resilience, and the claim is culturally compatible, whereas a resilience rationale for ordinary warm showers is flat and contradicted by daily experience.",
  "claim_ids_used": ["PM-0056", "PM-0128", "PM-0102", "PM-1353", "PM-0113", "PM-0110", "PM-0216", "PM-0946", "PM-1286"],
  "rationale": "The expectancy manipulation is a single brief explanation to alert participants: one small deposit paying the normal tax (PM-0056, PM-0128). It is repeated only implicitly through a practice enacted four times weekly (PM-0102, PM-1353), which helps, and PSS-10 is self-reported felt stress (PM-1286), favouring some effect. But the warm-shower rationale is flat and compatibility-poor (PM-0110, PM-0216), diluting the main effect, and nothing restructures the environment, so a one-time framing fades over four weeks (PM-0946). With about 60 per expectancy arm, power for a plausible d of 0.1-0.25 is low. Direction positive, significance unlikely; any effect concentrates in the cold arm through body-led rendering (PM-0113)."
}