This week I received feedback from Sarah on the early Critical Report submission.
The feedback was useful because the report was already structurally developed, so the comments were less about starting again and more about making my own position, limitations and next steps clearer.
One of the main points was that I needed to make my position as the designer more explicit.
The research was visible, but I had sometimes written as though I were completely detached from the project.
Sarah encouraged me to show how I am evaluating the research from a design perspective and to connect that more clearly to my personal motivation through Summer.
This led to the additional positionality wording in the introduction and further reflections later in the report.
Another important point was that the report is not finished.
Some of my wording, particularly in the conclusion, sounded as though I were recommending what another researcher should do next.
Sarah reminded me that this is my ongoing project.
I therefore changed the wording to make it clear that I still need to investigate, prototype and test the unresolved parts of the design.
The report should show where I am now, not pretend I have already reached the final answer.
Sarah also highlighted the limitation of physiological sensing and encouraged me to relate it more directly to an autistic traveller such as Summer.
This made the issue feel less abstract.
If physiological information is interpreted incorrectly, the result is not simply a technical error. It could mean that the system responds at the wrong time, provides unwanted support or becomes intrusive.
That reinforces the need for contextual interpretation and user control.