I have seen the following post. How much do we know about p-hacking "in the wild"? However, I do not know how bad if I do the following. An experiment with one factor controlled is carried out to test difference between treatments.
Suppose there is a one way ANOVA study and along which I collected some other covariate information. Assume that I do not have free money to conduct two way or higher ANOVA study. Suppose first naïve simple one way ANOVA did not show significance. However, according to previous studies, the result should be significant for treatments but difference between treatments is not known. Then I decided to add covariates and found significance. However, difference across levels were not found(with multiple testing adjusted). Then I decided to use a more complex model with same number of covariates and account outcome structure. The treatment is still significant. However, the difference across levels were not found as well(with multiple testing adjusted).
Q1: Since I have covariated ANOVA and complex model reaching the same conclusion that there is no difference across levels, should I say that 'I am p-hacking' in significance of treatment effect?
Q2: How much confidence should I place on naive model, covariated model and complex model? I do not think naive model is correct as subject might be too complex, controlling single factor is far from sufficient and the naive model does not reflect past consistent result as well