After building the reference table, I started making more deliberate decisions about what each source was doing within the report.

I did not want the final essay to become crowded with references simply because I had spent time reading them. The source needed to contribute directly to the argument.

Core References

The core references were the papers I expected to return to repeatedly.

These included research around neurodiversity, independence, sensory experience, airport accessibility and reflexive thematic analysis.

The strongest core sources were those that directly matched the population, context or methodological approach of my project.

Supporting References

Supporting references were still useful, but they did not need to carry the main argument.

This included wider transport reports, airport case studies, organisational guidance and some earlier technology precedents.

These sources could add context or examples, but I needed stronger academic evidence beside them when making central claims.

Sources I Could Cut

Some research had been genuinely useful earlier in the project but no longer matched the narrowed question.

The transformative-travel literature is a good example. It helped explain why independent travel mattered to me, but once the report moved towards airport accessibility and regulation it no longer needed a large amount of space.

Cutting a source did not mean the research had been wasted; it meant the project had become more focused.

Why This Helped

This process made the literature review easier to plan because I could see which references needed to appear together.

It also helped with the word count. Instead of trying to mention everything I had read, I could concentrate on the evidence that genuinely moved the argument forward.

The KEEP / SUPPORT / CUT system became a practical way of managing the research rather than relying on memory.