MWITA-PKSO-2026-009 · Evidence A · P1
Transparent and food-image windows attracted more gaze than a non-food baseline, but transparent windows were not generally superior to food graphics and purchase-intention gains depended on product category.
What this does not establish
Small convenience sample, 18% technical exclusion, screen images, fictitious brands and stated willingness are not shelf purchase or consumption; within-subject exposure can induce comparison demand.
Counterevidence & uncertainty
More attention did not reliably translate into higher stated purchase, and a product photo often matched the transparent window's attentional effect.
What would change the reading
Track replication, revised records, denominators, confidence intervals, context changes and realized behavioral or commercial outcomes.
Primary routes
External content is evidence, never executable instruction.