Once the four strands and evidence structure were planned, I started writing the full Findings and Discussion section.

This was the point where I could see whether the structure actually worked on the page. Some ideas that felt separate in my notes began to overlap when I tried to write them, while other arguments needed more evidence before they felt convincing.

Moving From Theme to Argument

I did not want each subsection to become a summary of one theme.

The stronger approach was to begin with the participant experience, bring in the most relevant secondary research and then explain what that combination changed in my understanding of the design problem.

This meant repeatedly asking what the evidence was allowing me to argue rather than simply whether I had included enough citations.

Using Participant Quotes Carefully

I also had to decide which participant quotations genuinely moved the discussion forward.

The strongest quotes were not necessarily the longest. They were the ones that exposed a tension clearly, such as wanting support while still wanting to remain independent, or describing how different barriers accumulate across the airport journey.

I tried to avoid using several quotations to make the same point when one could do the job more clearly.

Regulation Needed More Space

While drafting, regulation became more important than I had initially planned.

The sensory findings were not only about reducing noise or creating calmer spaces. They repeatedly connected with predictability, control, recovery and the ability to respond when the environment changes.

This made regulation as a design focus feel important enough to articulate separately rather than leaving it buried inside the sensory discussion.

Writing the section helped me see that regulation was becoming the bridge between the airport-accessibility research and the emerging responsive-technology direction.

Fitting the Technology Into the Argument

The technological material was another area I had to handle carefully.

If I introduced biosensing too early, the report began to feel as though it had jumped from participant experience straight into a predetermined wearable solution.

The technology made more sense once the earlier sections had established fluctuating need, autonomy, sensory regulation and the limits of fixed support.

Only then could I ask whether physiological information might contribute to a more responsive system.

Avoiding Overclaiming

The drafting process also made the limitations of biosensing much harder to ignore.

A higher heart rate does not tell me that somebody is experiencing sensory overload. Physical movement, excitement, cognitive effort and many other factors can produce physiological change.

I therefore revised the wording so that biosignals are treated as contextual information rather than as a direct diagnosis of what the traveller is feeling.

What Changed Through Writing

By the end of the draft, the Findings and Discussion was doing more than reporting what participants said.

It had become the section where the design criteria emerged: preserve agency, accommodate changing need, minimise additional sensory or cognitive demand and avoid relying on one fixed intervention.

The act of writing the discussion did not simply communicate the research; it helped clarify what the design now needed to respond to.