{
  "study_id": "NCT07731568",
  "agent": "framework",
  "run": 3,
  "p_primary_hypothesis_supported": 0.27,
  "effect_direction": "favours intervention",
  "effect_size_90pct_interval": {"low": -1.5, "high": 3.0, "metric": "Between-group difference in GAD-7 change, 0-21 scale, at 4 weeks (positive = larger reduction with NPT)"},
  "moderator_prediction": "Higher-baseline-anxiety students gain more from NPT relative to CBT: exposure-by-enactment ('do what you fear') produces behavioural proof that outweighs cognitive restructuring when the anxious account is heavily potentiated, whereas mild cases move under either arm.",
  "claim_ids_used": ["PM-1353", "PM-0851", "PM-0056", "PM-0128", "PM-0218", "PM-0216", "PM-0383", "PM-0946"],
  "rationale": "The framework favours NPT slightly: its principles demand enactment (endure, accept, seek the feared), and enactment installs where assent does not [PM-1353, PM-0851], while CBT's cognitive restructuring is partly argument, a small deposit paying the normal tax [PM-0056, PM-0128]. NPT's Chinese-cultural framing should pass the compatibility check more cheaply for these participants [PM-0218, PM-0216]. But both arms are online groups with exposure-type homework and equal dose [PM-0383], so the difference is modest, and a 4-week course is close to a weekend seminar in depth [PM-0946]. With about 27 per arm against an active comparator, significant superiority needs roughly d=0.75; the likely outcome is a nonsignificant NPT-leaning difference, though developer allegiance raises the odds somewhat."
}