The early submission draft is now slightly over the 5,000-word target, which means I have started editing for proportion rather than simply adding more material.
The current draft is approximately 5,199 words, so it still sits within the permitted tolerance, but I do not want to keep unnecessary repetition simply because the word count technically allows it.
The current split is not identical to my original plan.
The introduction and conclusion grew slightly, while the literature review became more concise than expected. The Findings and Discussion remains the largest section, which still feels appropriate because this is where the main analysis takes place.
This has reminded me that the original word-count plan was useful as a guide rather than a rule.
The most obvious editing task is repetition.
Ideas such as individual variability, fluctuating needs, user control and the limitations of physiological sensing appear across several sections because they are central to the argument.
The challenge is making sure each repetition develops the point rather than simply restating it.
I do not want to cut the limitations just to save words.
Statements explaining that physiological arousal is not equivalent to sensory overload, or that Summer is a personal lens rather than representative evidence, are important to the integrity of the report.
Those caveats need to remain even if they make the writing slightly longer.
The Manchester Phrasebank work has been useful again here because I can often combine description, comparison and implication more efficiently.
A sentence should ideally do more than introduce a source.
If two papers make related points, combining them into one analytical paragraph is often both shorter and stronger than explaining them separately.