that's exactly what the original study was proposing as an effect:
> They found that the probability of a favorable decision drops from about 65% to almost 0% from the first ruling to the last ruling within each session and that the rate of favorable rulings returns to 65% in a session following a food break.
it's not unreasonable as an original hypothesis; and it's good that we're testing it and finding out later that it's wrong. but the base hypothesis is not particularly egregious.
> They found that the probability of a favorable decision drops from about 65% to almost 0% from the first ruling to the last ruling within each session and that the rate of favorable rulings returns to 65% in a session following a food break.
it's not unreasonable as an original hypothesis; and it's good that we're testing it and finding out later that it's wrong. but the base hypothesis is not particularly egregious.