In my first structure I had a literature review followed by findings and discussion. This helped me get the material on the page, but a reader could meet an idea in the literature and then meet it again when I introduced the questionnaire. Ben asked whether the themes I was already drawing out might be the arguments of the report. That made me look at the contents as a sequence of claims. I needed to decide what each part established and where the reader needed to see the evidence for it.
The earlier structure separated types of material. The revised discussion moves through accessibility and systems, independence and autonomy, contextual and changing needs, and responsive technology and its limitations. The four themes from my analysis informed that sequence. The section on systems also gives me room to discuss what airports provide and what travellers can actually use. I could then bring in technology after showing where the communication problem sits.
<aside>
The unit of the revision was the argument. I brought sources and participant accounts together where the reader needed both to understand a claim.
</aside>
I used two different accounts from the same questionnaire prompt. P01 described support as something that could enable independence. P10 described independence in terms of doing things alone, while another answer also described shared planning. Keeping the question and the surrounding responses in view helped me resist making either account stand for the whole group. Research on independence and self-determination gave me a way to interpret the difference. What matters for the design is who decides whether to ask for help, when it is offered and whether they can carry on once they decline it.
The revised order lets that interpretation lead into the next problem. A traveller’s preferences may stay the same, while what they need in a particular moment changes because the gate moves or the terminal gets crowded. That is where the report can move from independence to changing conditions. I can then ask what a responsive system might add and where its evidence runs out. The practical check I would use on a reread is whether I can state the claim of each section and explain why the next one follows.
The planning entries in Weeks 13 and 14 show the earlier split between the literature review and the findings. In the revised report, I would compare that plan with the opening of the discussion and the section on independence and autonomy. The table in the methods also shows the steps from participant accounts to interpretation and a possible design response. Reading those pieces together makes it possible to see which ideas travelled from the early plan into the revised structure and why they sit where they do.