Submitting the report early for feedback has been useful because it forced me to bring the research into one coherent argument before the project itself is finished.
Until this point, I had been working across literature, participant research, technology research and Studio Practice at the same time. The report made me decide which parts actually connect and which ideas were no longer central.
The strongest part of the report now is the overall research thread.
The project begins with individual variability and autonomy, moves into sensory and airport accessibility, then uses the primary research to show how support needs can fluctuate and how fragmented systems can increase demand.
This creates a logical reason to investigate responsive support rather than introducing wearable technology simply because it is interesting.
The technological output is still deliberately unresolved.
I have enough research to justify investigating physiological sensing and bioresponsive support, but I do not yet have enough evidence to decide which form the final system should take.
The wearable itself also needs much more design development around materiality, comfort and sensory tolerance.
The feedback stage helped me see the report less as a finished academic object and more as part of an ongoing design enquiry.
The main revisions have made my position clearer and made the boundaries of the technological argument more explicit, which means the remaining questions now translate much more directly into Studio Practice work.
The most useful outcome is that the report has started generating the next Studio Practice tasks.
I now have clearer questions around output modality, wearable form, user control, privacy, contextual interpretation and how the system should communicate with the traveller.
The report is no longer only documenting the project; it is actively directing what I need to design next.
The early submission is therefore not a finished endpoint.