I know you kinda touched on it but an important aspect for us non-scientists is the initial premise/question. Is it a study to determine what happens when x meets x or if x happens? Or, is it a study that goes x is happening, this is a verifiable fact, now why on earth is it happening? Depending on the type it does make it easier to decide whether to believe the results depending on things like sample size and what not.

It's to let cats through.

It's a natural crater along the north coast of Jersey, the largest of the Channel Islands between England and France.

I know this is a little off wall but New York City once did something in a similar nature. Under a previous mayor they went full bar on all crimes. If it was a crime they punished the perpetrators no matter how small the crime. By doing so they had a drop in all crime throughout the city. This is the exact opposite of what certain elected officials are doing now. They claim that they don't want people to be unjustly punished for little things thus ruining their chances in life. However it flies in the face of human psychology. By our nature we push at our boundaries. Letting people get away with little crimes just emboldens them to do more or worse crimes.

In a press conference they explained the people in question were part of a mob of people that attacked federal officers. The officers did not want to try and wade through a whole mob so they waited and followed until they could approach them without a ton of people around. Two uniformed federal officers then approached them announced who they were and proceeded to arrest them. The van was called in to move them but because of an approaching mob they wanted to get everyone out as quickly as possible to keep everyone safe. This is where the unmarked van rapidly pulled up and quickly drove off. For the record unmarked vehicles are used by every law enforcement agency and have been used for decades.

Yeah, I'm in this photo and I don't like it.