At the beginning of Week 15 I returned to the Critical Report after receiving feedback on the early submission. A lot of the report is now in a much stronger position, but the feedback was useful because it highlighted places where the research was clear but my own position as the designer was still too hidden.

The main thing I need to carry forward is that this report is still part of an ongoing project. I do not need to pretend that every technological decision has already been resolved. Instead, I need to be explicit about what the research has established, what remains uncertain and what I still need to investigate through Studio Practice.

Making My Position More Visible

One of the clearest points from the feedback was that I need to make my own position as the designer more visible throughout the report.

I had already explained the project academically, but I had not always made it clear why particular questions matter to me or how I am evaluating the design implications. This is especially important because my role is not to build a medical device or prove a scientific intervention. I am approaching the project as a graphic designer interested in communication, systems, interaction and how emerging technology is experienced by the person using it.

I have therefore added a clearer positionality statement explaining my design background and the personal motivation behind the project through my sister, Summer.

The report needs to show not only what the evidence says, but how I am using that evidence to make design judgements.

Using Summer as a Personal Lens

The feedback also encouraged me to bring Summer into the discussion more carefully.

This does not mean using her experience as evidence for autistic adults generally. My primary research and secondary research still need to provide the broader evidence base. Instead, Summer gives me a personal lens through which abstract design decisions become much more tangible.

For example, when I write about physiological sensing, I can ask what it would mean if a system incorrectly interpreted somebody's state. When I think about wearables, I can consider whether the object would actually feel acceptable to her rather than only whether the technology is technically possible.

This has made autonomy, comfort, discretion and trust feel much more concrete.

Clarifying the Limits of Physiological Sensing

Another important point was the limitation of biosignals.

I already knew that heart rate, HRV and other physiological measures cannot directly identify sensory overload, but I need to make that limitation clear whenever I discuss the technology. Physiological information can be affected by physical movement, cognitive demand, emotion and individual baseline.

This becomes particularly important in an airport, where somebody may be walking quickly, carrying luggage, queuing, responding to announcements or dealing with an unexpected change.

I therefore need to keep the distinction clear:

physiological data can inform a response, but it should not determine what the system assumes the traveller is experiencing.

This strengthens the argument for individual baseline, contextual interpretation and manual control.

The Wearable Itself Needs Designing

One of the most useful pieces of feedback concerned the physical form of the wearable.

The technology itself could become another sensory or cognitive demand. That means materiality is not a secondary aesthetic consideration. It is part of accessibility.

Thinking about Summer makes this particularly obvious. She would be unlikely to choose hard jewellery-like technology, while a softer or fabric-based form would be much more plausible for her. Again, this is not representative of every autistic person, but it exposes an important design question around material, pressure, texture, placement and visibility.

This gives me a much clearer Studio Practice opportunity because I can begin testing the wearable as a designed object rather than treating it as an invisible technical component.

Being Honest About What Is Still Unresolved

The conclusion also needed to sound more clearly like my own ongoing project rather than a detached recommendation.

Because this is an early submission, I need to say directly that I still have work to do. I need to investigate how physiological information could be translated into useful feedback, and I still need to test whether that feedback should be auditory, haptic, visual, immersive or multimodal.

I think this is actually stronger than prematurely presenting a final answer. The research has justified a direction, but the design outcome still needs to be tested.

What I Need to Carry Into Studio Practice

The feedback has helped turn several report limitations into Studio Practice questions.

I now need to explore the physical form and materiality of the wearable, compare different feedback modalities, continue researching bioadaptive and neuroadaptive technology, consider privacy and trust more visibly, and test how much control the user should have over the system.

The most important shift is that the unresolved parts of the report are now becoming the design work I need to do next.

That gives Week 15 a much clearer purpose: moving from a research-led proposition towards something I can begin to visualise, prototype and evaluate.