In the follow-up feedback, Ben said that the references were there but he wanted to see why I had put them together. Some short paragraphs introduced a source and moved straight to the next. I could follow the connection because I had done the reading. The reader had to infer what I thought the studies established. I went back to the literature-led parts of the discussion and looked for places where I could make that reasoning visible.
One example is the discussion of autism-friendly provision. Castro and colleagues counted initiatives, drawing heavily on a programme directory. Edwards and colleagues examined travellers’ experiences and described barriers that persisted even where initiatives existed. In a source-by-source version of the paragraph, I would have a sentence on how many airports offer something and another on difficulties travellers describe. The revised argument asks what each source can establish. The survey can show where provision has been documented. The experience research helps me ask whether people know it is there and can use it when they need it.
<aside>
My contribution is in what I make of the comparison. I distinguish between a service being listed and a traveller being able to find and use it.
</aside>
I could describe the Gold Coast sensory map by listing the things on it. What mattered for my question was what those details let a traveller decide. A map can make sensory conditions available before someone enters an area. The traveller still has to connect that information to where they are going. That led me to consider how to show a useful next step and leave more detail within reach. It also helped me write about the map without making a claim that the report had tested its usability.
I check whether a paragraph says what I am trying to establish, what the evidence can bear and what that means for design. If two papers use different populations or settings, I need to explain why I am comparing them and where the comparison stops. I also check whether I return to an idea when it matters later. In this report, the distinction between available and usable support helps explain why I keep airport responsibility in view even when I discuss a phone-based intervention.
The clearest place to see this is Accessibility and systems. I explain how a recognised symbol can signal a need and why the response still depends on staff and services. Later, in the discussion of contextual needs, I can bring that question back to the traveller who has to find information after a change. The two passages let me connect an argument about airport responsibility to specific choices about what information a design makes available.