The conclusion took more thought than simply summarising the report.
At first I was tempted to use it to present the final design direction, but that would make the research sound more resolved than it actually is.
The conclusion needs to answer the research problem, bring together the strongest findings and clearly state what still requires investigation.
The strongest conclusion is not that airports need one new product.
The research suggests that accessibility is affected by individual variability, unpredictability, autonomy, sensory regulation and fragmentation across the journey.
Fixed or standardised support may therefore struggle to respond when the same traveller's needs change over time.
This is the point the conclusion needs to return to.
The report supports a move towards more personalised and responsive forms of accessibility.
It also supports the importance of preserving choice and control. Any system that attempts to respond automatically without allowing the traveller to understand, override or disengage from it could undermine the independence it is intended to support.
The conclusion also needs to be clear about the limits of the project.
The research does not prove that physiological sensing can identify sensory overload. It does not establish one ideal wearable form and it does not yet determine whether the most appropriate feedback should be auditory, haptic, visual, immersive or multimodal.
I think this is important to state directly.
A strong conclusion should separate what the research has established from what the next stage of design still needs to test.
While drafting the conclusion, I also started questioning whether detached wording such as "future research should explore" made sense for an ongoing Studio Practice project.
The report is documenting my own enquiry, so the conclusion needs to make clear which questions I still need to investigate rather than sounding as though I am handing the project to somebody else.