I have now moved beyond open-ended technology ideation. Earlier I was exploring adaptive glasses, audio support, VR sensory refuge, haptic clothing, vibrating objects, thermal feedback, AI support, breathing objects and navigation systems.

The red-team critique helped me stop asking “Which technology should I make?” and instead ask which ideas genuinely addressed the airport problem, what new burdens they might create, and what role biosensing could reasonably play.

Following critical comparison of the initial concepts, I narrowed the design space to three biosensing-informed directions: personal sensory control, contextual airport support, and user-selected grounding/regulation.

What the critique changed

I challenged each direction against the same questions: does it respond to a real airport difficulty, am I overinterpreting physiological information, could the intervention add sensory or cognitive demand, what happens with false or unwanted triggers, does it affect safety or situational awareness, what already exists, and can I prototype it honestly within the MA?

The main change in my thinking

I am no longer comparing isolated products. I am now comparing different ways a bioresponsive support system could behave.

Several earlier ideas are therefore now parked, merged or rejected in their current form. I do not see these as failed ideas. VR highlighted situational-awareness problems; breathing and voice concepts raised interaction-demand questions; haptic and thermal ideas forced me to question whether I was assuming a regulatory effect that had not been established.

The deeper research has left me with three coherent directions that share the same biosensing-informed foundation but differ in what support follows:

1. Personal sensory control — changing visual or auditory input.
2. Contextual airport support — changing information, route or preparation support.
3. Grounding / regulation support — offering an optional user-selected response.

Where this leaves the project

This stage represents a narrowing of the design space, not selection of a final product.

Biosensing remains part of the working proposition, but I am not treating it as a way to detect sensory overload, stress, anxiety or dysregulation. Physiological change is being explored as one possible signal that may make it useful to check in with the traveller.

The stronger question is now: “How should a biosensing-informed system recognise change, account for context, communicate uncertainty and offer useful support while leaving the autistic traveller in control?”

What the literature changed

After comparing the three directions against the literature and airport-specific evidence, I no longer think they need to compete as three separate products. A clearer evidence hierarchy is emerging.

CORE — Contextual airport support

This is currently the strongest overall direction.

The airport problem is already well established: sensory demand, unpredictability, communication, crowding, navigation and fragmented information can interact across the journey.

This gives me the clearest reason to design around where the traveller is, what is happening around them, and what support is available next.

SECONDARY — Personal sensory control

Visual and audio filtering still appear useful because sensory preferences differ between people.

I now see these more convincingly as responses within the wider system rather than the whole project.

The system should not assume that quieter, darker or less stimulation is automatically preferable.

OPTIONAL — Grounding / regulation

Haptic, tactile, breathing, audio or other user-selected responses remain possible.

However, the direct evidence for biosensing-triggered regulation in autistic adults during airport travel is much weaker.

These options therefore need to remain configurable and non-therapeutic.

The deeper research did not prove that the contextual concept works. It helped me see that the contextual direction is the best match to the strongest evidence already available about the airport problem.

Airport-specific work identifies interacting barriers around sensory environments, security, crowding, communication, preparation and predictability. My own primary research also keeps returning to control, unpredictability, self-regulation and fragmented systems.

Research on autistic sensory experience reinforces that there is no single profile or universally appropriate sensory response. This makes a configurable system more defensible than one fixed “calming” intervention.

Critical distinction

Evidence establishes: airports can create interacting barriers; sensory experience is heterogeneous; physiological wearables can detect bodily change; signals are affected by movement, context and baseline; wearable form itself can create sensory burden.

My current interpretation: context may make physiological change more useful to a responsive system.

My current hypothesis: a biosensing-informed check-in might help offer support at a useful time while still allowing the traveller to decide whether anything is needed.

Not established: that biosensing detects overload; that physiological change means support is required; that one intervention works for everyone; or that the proposed system improves airport outcomes.

Where I am now

I am currently treating contextual airport support as the core proposition, with sensory control as a secondary response layer and grounding/regulation as an optional layer. This is a probable direction, not a final outcome.