By Week 11, the project had narrowed enough that I needed to revisit the working question rather than continue using the broad version from the beginning of the module.
The earlier question around reducing barriers to independent international travel had been useful, but the research was now pointing much more strongly towards airports, sensory regulation, unpredictability and individual control.
Independent international travel includes far more than the airport journey. It could include accommodation, transport, communication, safety, planning and social experience.
Trying to cover all of this in one Critical Report would make the argument too shallow.
The airport had become the clearest context because it concentrated many of the recurring barriers identified in both the literature and my primary research.
A stronger working question became:
How might shared airport accessibility better respond to the individual sensory needs of adults on the autism spectrum travelling independently?
This wording felt much closer to the actual design problem because it recognised the tension between shared accessibility provision and individual need.
The question had moved from “how can travel become more accessible?” towards “how can fixed airport support respond to changing individual need?”
At this stage I still did not want to place VR, AI or biosensing directly into the research question.
Those technologies were possible responses to the problem rather than the problem itself.
Keeping the question focused on accessibility gave me more room to evaluate different design directions without forcing the report to justify one technology too early.
This review gave the Critical Report a much clearer boundary.
It also made the later literature selection easier because I could start cutting sources that no longer helped answer the more focused airport question.
As the research question narrowed, the title also needed to change.