{
  "study_id": "NCT07731568",
  "agent": "framework",
  "run": 5,
  "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: under high threat, cognitive restructuring is argument paying the normal tax against heavily priced threat, while NPT's enact-and-accept principles install through behaviour and the body.",
  "claim_ids_used": ["PM-1353", "PM-0851", "PM-1345", "PM-0056", "PM-0238", "PM-0128", "PM-0845", "PM-0585", "PM-0383", "PM-0232", "PM-1286"],
  "rationale": "The framework leans slightly toward NPT: its three principles are enactment ('do what you fear'), which installs where assent does not (PM-1353, PM-0851, PM-1345), while CBT's cognitive restructuring is first-order argument, a small deposit taxed by an alert evaluator (PM-0056, PM-0238, PM-0128), especially against threat that is priced heavily (PM-0845, PM-0585). But CBT also includes behavioural experiments, both arms share group delivery and online format (PM-0383), and the felt-symptom outcome is reachable by both (PM-1286). With about 55 participants and an active comparator, only a large difference would reach significance; developer allegiance (PM-0232) raises the chance somewhat. The most likely result is both arms improving and no significant difference."
}