Main takeaway from Ben: My Critical Report does not need rewriting from scratch. The research is there; the task is to make its arguments easier to follow by bringing sources, participant evidence and my own design interpretation together.

What the feedback means

The current separation between Literature Review and Findings/Discussion makes the same ideas appear more than once. Ben wants the body to function as a connected critical narrative, not a series of independent summaries. Each argument should draw on academic research and relevant participant accounts together, then explain their significance for the design problem.

The four primary-research themes — control and independence, unpredictability, sensory regulation, and fragmented systems — may provide the structure, but they need testing as arguments, not simply copying over as headings. The most important question remains: What am I trying to establish here, and what evidence justifies it?

What to protect and improve

Ben liked the introduction grounded in my independent travel and conversations with Summer. Keep that personal motivation, but define the autism spectrum and individual variation earlier. The paragraph introducing the four strands may work as the introduction's ending.

The writing also needs fewer tiny paragraphs and less elaborate language that does not advance a point. I should combine related ideas where appropriate and make my own critical/design judgement visible. Ben was not objecting to AI use itself; I must remain the author of the reasoning. He also asked me to be precise about methodology versus methods: written responses and reflexive thematic analysis are specific methods, not the entire methodological approach.

For presentation, the report should look like a formal, restrained academic publication, ideally typeset in InDesign. Well-considered headings, figures and diagrams are useful; over-designing it would distract from the argument. Ben's feedback suggested a Merit was within reach, but stronger structure would be needed to aim higher.

Immediate action

Rather than moving everything at once, restructure one argument-led section first. Put the matching literature and primary quotations next to each other, preserve strong existing wording, remove duplication and explain the design implication. Send that section to Ben through Teams for feedback before reorganising the rest.

This is a communication and synthesis correction, not a rejection of the project, its research evidence or its current exploratory design direction.