\chapter{Results}
\label{ch:results}

This chapter presents the results of the pilot validation study described in Chapter~\ref{ch:evaluation}. Because this is a small pilot, I report descriptive statistics and qualitative observations rather than inferential tests. The goal is directional evidence: the chapter reports whether patterns in the data consistently favor HRIStudio across the primary and supplementary measures.

\section{Participant Overview}

Table~\ref{tbl:sessions} summarizes the participants and their assigned conditions. Wizards are identified by code to protect confidentiality. All six participants were Bucknell University professors drawn from Computer Science, Chemical Engineering, Digital Humanities, and Logic and Philosophy of Science. Demographic information (programming background) was collected during recruitment.


\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
\textbf{ID} & \textbf{Condition} & \textbf{Background} & \makecell[l]{\textbf{Programming}\\\textbf{Experience}} \\
\hline
W-01 & Choregraphe & Digital Humanities & None \\
\hline
W-02 & HRIStudio & Logic and Philosophy of Science & Moderate \\
\hline
W-03 & Choregraphe & Computer Science & Extensive \\
\hline
W-04 & Choregraphe & Chemical Engineering & Moderate \\
\hline
W-05 & HRIStudio & Chemical Engineering & None \\
\hline
W-06 & HRIStudio & Computer Science & Extensive \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Summary of wizard participants and assigned conditions.}
\label{tbl:sessions}
\end{table}

Table~\ref{tbl:primary-outcomes} presents the primary outcome scores, which are discussed next.

\section{Primary Measures}

\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\footnotesize
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|r|r|r|}
\hline
\textbf{ID} & \textbf{Condition} & \textbf{DFS} & \textbf{ERS} & \textbf{SUS} \\
\hline
W-01 & Choregraphe & 42.5 & 65 & 60 \\
\hline
W-02 & HRIStudio & 100 & 95 & 90 \\
\hline
W-03 & Choregraphe & 65 & 60 & 75 \\
\hline
W-04 & Choregraphe & 62.5 & 75 & 42.5 \\
\hline
W-05 & HRIStudio & 100 & 95 & 70 \\
\hline
W-06 & HRIStudio & 100 & 100 & 70 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Primary outcome scores by wizard and condition.}
\label{tbl:primary-outcomes}
\end{table}

\subsection{Design Fidelity Score (DFS)}

The Design Fidelity Score measures how completely and correctly each wizard implemented the written specification of their assigned experiment. Scores range from 0 to 100, with full points awarded only when a component — a rubric criterion representing a required speech action, gesture, or control-flow element — is both present and correct. (For a full description of rubric categories, see Section~\ref{sec:measures}.)

Across the six participants, DFS scores divided sharply by study condition: all three HRIStudio wizards achieved a perfect score of 100, while the three Choregraphe wizards scored 42.5, 65, and 62.5. The following paragraphs describe the key findings from each session.

W-01 received a DFS of 42.5. Analysis of the exported project file found all four interaction steps present and correctly sequenced; the conditional branch was wired and functional. Speech fidelity was partial: W-01 deviated from the specification by substituting a different rock color in the narrative and comprehension question, departing from the ``red'' specified in the paper protocol. Items 1 and 4 (introduction and branch responses) received full points; items 2 and 3 received half points due to the content mismatch. The gesture category scored zero. Both the introduction wave and the narrative gesture were implemented via the tool's \emph{Animated Say} function, which generates motion non-deterministically from a library rather than placing a specific gesture node; under the rubric's clarifying rule, this does not satisfy the Correct criterion. Item 7 (nod or head shake) was not explicitly programmed. The control-flow category was split: item 9 (correct step sequence) received full points; item 8 (conditional branch) received half points because the branch was resolved by manually deleting and re-routing connections during the trial rather than through a dedicated conditional node wired at design time.

W-02 received a DFS of 100. The exported project file confirmed all four interaction steps present and correctly sequenced, speech content matching the written specification verbatim, gestures placed using dedicated action nodes, and the conditional branch wired through HRIStudio's branch component. No tool-operation interventions were logged during the design phase. W-02 completed the design in 24 minutes, within the 30-minute allocation.

W-03 received a DFS of 65. W-03 approached the design as a block programming exercise, constructing extra nodes and attempting a concurrent execution structure not called for by the specification. One C-type clarification (see Section~\ref{sec:measures}) was required: I noted that control-flow logic relying on onboard speech recognition was outside the scope of this study, since Wizard-of-Oz execution routes all speech decisions through the wizard rather than the robot. Speech fidelity was partial: two of the three scorable speech items were present, with not all delivered correctly. No conditional branch was implemented in the final design, resulting in zero points for that category. The design phase extended to 37 minutes, seven minutes over the 30-minute allocation.

W-04 received a DFS of 62.5. The design phase ran 35 minutes without reaching completion, making W-04 the only wizard in the study who did not finish the design before the cutoff. Four T-type tool-operation interventions and one C-type clarification were logged. During training, W-04 asked about running two behavior blocks simultaneously and how to edit a block, reflecting early engagement with Choregraphe's concurrent flow model. During the design phase, W-04 asked about interpretation of punctuation in speech content, generating three simultaneous T-type marks across items 1--3. W-04 also independently attempted to use Choregraphe's choice block for conditional branching; the block did not execute correctly. The researcher re-explained the WoZ execution model and how to branch by manual step selection. Speech items 1, 2, and 4 received full points; item 3 (the comprehension question) was absent from the final design. Gesture items 5 and 6 received full points; item 7 (nod or head shake) was present but not marked correct (5/10). The conditional branch received zero points; no functional branch was wired at export. Step sequencing received partial credit (7.5/15).

W-05 received a DFS of 100. The design phase completed in 18 minutes, the shortest design phase in the study. Training concluded in 6 minutes with no questions asked; the wizard described the platform as ``pretty straightforward.'' Two T-type interventions and three C-type clarifications were logged during the design phase. The T-type interventions concerned editing properties in the right pane of the experiment designer and understanding that the branch block requires predefined steps; both were addressed without affecting the final design. The C-type clarifications concerned what ``steps'' represent as structural containers, the relationship between the written specification's speech and platform speech actions, and a related conceptual question. The wizard added a creative narrative gesture not specified in the protocol (a crouch animation); this was present and correct under the rubric. The DFS assessment noted that the wizard's design mapped well from the specification.

W-06 received a DFS of 100. Two T-type interventions were logged during the design phase, both pertaining to item 6 (narrative gesture): at 15:21, W-06 attempted to use parallel execution for a gesture action and was unable to edit the action node; at 15:24, W-06 encountered difficulty resetting the robot's posture and was directed to recommended posture blocks. In both cases, W-06 resolved the issue independently after the initial prompt. W-06's programming background led to a more elaborate design than the specification required, including extra posture-reset actions that were ultimately redundant since the robot was already in the correct starting position; these additions did not affect scoring since all required actions were present and correct in the exported project file. The conditional branch was wired correctly, and all speech and gesture items matched the specification. W-06 completed the design in 21 minutes, within the 30-minute allocation.

Across the three HRIStudio sessions, DFS scores were 100, 100, and 100 (mean 100). Across the three Choregraphe sessions, DFS scores were 42.5, 65, and 62.5 (mean 56.7).

\subsection{Execution Reliability Score (ERS)}

The Execution Reliability Score measures how faithfully the designed interaction executed during the live trial.

Execution results followed the same pattern as design fidelity. HRIStudio trials produced ERS scores of 95, 95, and 100, with no session requiring tool-operation guidance to reach the interaction's conclusion. Choregraphe trials averaged 66.7, with branching failures in two of three sessions and a speech content deviation in the third (see Section~\ref{sec:results-qualitative} for details). The per-session details are as follows.

W-01 received an ERS of 65. The trial ran for approximately five minutes. In this session, I served as the test subject during the live trial. Through that experience I confirmed that a separately recruited participant is not required: the DFS and ERS both evaluate the wizard's implementation and execution fidelity rather than a subject's behavioral responses. Subsequent sessions therefore ran the trial phase with the wizard executing the designed interaction directly, without a separate test subject. The introduction speech and gesture executed correctly. The narrative speech executed but deviated from the specification due to the modified rock color described above. The comprehension question was delivered, a branch response was triggered, and the interaction proceeded to its conclusion. Gesture synchronization was partial: a pause gesture executed, but coordination between speech and movement was inconsistent at several points. No system disconnections or crashes occurred.

W-02 received an ERS of 95. The trial ran for approximately five minutes. Introduction speech and gesture, narrative speech, comprehension question, and branch response content all executed correctly and matched the specification. During the trial, the interaction briefly advanced to an incorrect step when a branch transition misfired; this was immediately corrected by manually selecting the correct step in the execution interface. This incident was logged as an H-type intervention (platform behavior, not wizard error). The branching item scored 5 out of 10 on its own merits: the branch was present in the design and execution reached the branch step, but the initial misfire meant the transition was not fully correct before manual correction. No other deviations or system failures occurred.

W-03 received an ERS of 60. The trial ran for approximately five minutes. Speech execution was partial: two of three items were present but not all delivered correctly. Gesture and speech synchronization was poor throughout the interaction; motion cues were present but did not coordinate reliably with corresponding speech actions. The conditional branch, absent from W-03's design, was not executed during the trial; the interaction proceeded without a branch resolution step. No system disconnections or crashes occurred.

W-04 received an ERS of 75. The trial ran for approximately four minutes. Introduction and narrative speech executed correctly. The comprehension question, absent from the design, was not delivered; the interaction proceeded directly to the branch step. A T-type trial intervention was required to remind W-04 how to trigger the branch; the yes-branch response was delivered following that prompt, capping item 4 at 5/10 (T-assisted). Gesture execution was strong: introduction wave, narrative gesture, and nod or head shake all executed correctly. Speech and gesture synchronization scored full points. The pause before the comprehension question scored zero, as no question was delivered. No system errors occurred.

W-05 received an ERS of 95. The trial ran for approximately four minutes and reached step 4. The researcher's answer was ``Red'' (the correct answer), and branch A fired via programmed conditional logic. All speech items executed correctly. Introduction gesture, nod or head shake, speech synchronization, and the pre-question pause all scored full points. One trial intervention pair was logged: the researcher briefly forgot they were in live execution (G-type), then was reminded and manually skipped a non-functional crouch action (T-type, capping item 6 at 5/10). The crouch animation exists in HRIStudio's action library but does not execute on the NAO6 robot-side; skipping it was the correct recovery. All other items scored full points and no system errors occurred. The overall ERS assessment recorded that the interaction executed as designed.

W-06 received a perfect ERS of 100. The trial ran for approximately three minutes. No interventions of any type were logged during the trial phase. All speech items executed correctly and matched the specification. Gestures, speech synchronization, and the pre-question pause all scored full points. The conditional branch was present in the design and fired correctly during execution via programmed conditional logic. The interaction reached its conclusion without errors, disconnections, or researcher involvement.

Across the three HRIStudio sessions, ERS scores were 95, 95, and 100 (mean 96.7). Across the three Choregraphe sessions, ERS scores were 65, 60, and 75 (mean 66.7).

\subsection{System Usability Scale}

The System Usability Scale (SUS) uses a 0--100 scale with a conventional average of 68; scores above 68 indicate above-average perceived usability~\cite{Brooke1996}. W-01 rated Choregraphe with a SUS score of 60. A score of 60 suggests that W-01, a Digital Humanities faculty member with no programming background, found Choregraphe marginal in usability; this outcome is consistent with the high volume of interface-level help requests observed during the design phase.

W-02 rated HRIStudio with a SUS score of 90, the highest score in the study. W-02, a Logic and Philosophy of Science faculty member with moderate programming experience, completed the design phase without tool-operation assistance and rated the platform favorably across usability dimensions.

W-03 rated Choregraphe with a SUS score of 75. W-03, a programmer with prior experience in block programming environments, perceived the tool positively in general terms, framing it as a capable system for its category. Post-session comments indicated that W-03 found the tool harder to apply to this specific task than its general capability suggested, particularly given the WoZ framing's constraint against onboard control-flow logic. W-03 had no prior knowledge of HRIStudio, providing no comparative baseline for their usability rating.

W-04 rated Choregraphe with a SUS score of 42.5, the lowest score in the study. Researcher notes recorded that W-04 attempted the task with evident self-driven engagement but that the platform appeared to get in the way. The gap between effort and outcome in W-04's session, a motivated wizard who exceeded the time allocation without completing the design and required four T-type interventions, is directly reflected in this rating.

W-05 rated HRIStudio with a SUS score of 70. Post-session comments recorded no issues. W-05, a Chemical Engineering faculty member with no programming background, completed the design well within the allocation and ran the trial to its conclusion without tool-operation difficulty during execution.

W-06 rated HRIStudio with a SUS score of 70. W-06, a Computer Science faculty member with extensive programming experience, completed the design within the allocation and ran a perfect trial without researcher intervention. The score matches W-05's rating exactly; both wizards found the platform above-average in usability despite approaching the task from very different programming backgrounds.

HRIStudio study condition SUS scores were 90, 70, and 70 (mean 76.7). Choregraphe study condition SUS scores were 60, 75, and 42.5 (mean 59.2).

Figure~\ref{fig:results-chart} summarizes the three primary measures side-by-side. In each group, the left bar represents the Choregraphe mean and the right bar represents the HRIStudio mean. HRIStudio exceeds Choregraphe on every measure, with the largest gap on DFS (43.3 points) and the smallest on SUS (17.5 points).

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
    % Axes
    \draw[thick] (0,0) -- (0,6.3);
    \draw[thick] (0,0) -- (11.2,0);

    % Y-axis ticks and labels (0--100, with 1 unit = 0.06 cm)
    \foreach \tick/\val in {0/0, 1.2/20, 2.4/40, 3.6/60, 4.8/80, 6.0/100} {
        \draw (-0.08, \tick) -- (0, \tick);
        \node[left, font=\footnotesize] at (-0.05, \tick) {\val};
    }
    \node[rotate=90, font=\small] at (-1.05, 3.0) {Mean Score (0--100)};

    % Horizontal gridlines
    \foreach \tick in {1.2, 2.4, 3.6, 4.8, 6.0} {
        \draw[gray!25, thin] (0.02, \tick) -- (11.2, \tick);
    }

    % DFS group
    \fill[gray!40, draw=black] (1.0, 0) rectangle (2.3, 3.402);
    \fill[gray!75, draw=black] (2.4, 0) rectangle (3.7, 6.000);
    \node[font=\footnotesize] at (1.65, 3.60) {56.7};
    \node[font=\footnotesize] at (3.05, 6.20) {100};
    \node[font=\small] at (2.35, -0.38) {DFS};

    % ERS group
    \fill[gray!40, draw=black] (4.5, 0) rectangle (5.8, 4.002);
    \fill[gray!75, draw=black] (5.9, 0) rectangle (7.2, 5.802);
    \node[font=\footnotesize] at (5.15, 4.20) {66.7};
    \node[font=\footnotesize] at (6.55, 6.00) {96.7};
    \node[font=\small] at (5.85, -0.38) {ERS};

    % SUS group
    \fill[gray!40, draw=black] (8.0, 0) rectangle (9.3, 3.552);
    \fill[gray!75, draw=black] (9.4, 0) rectangle (10.7, 4.602);
    \node[font=\footnotesize] at (8.65, 3.75) {59.2};
    \node[font=\footnotesize] at (10.05, 4.80) {76.7};
    \node[font=\small] at (9.35, -0.38) {SUS};

    % Legend
    \fill[gray!40, draw=black] (2.6, -1.25) rectangle (3.0, -1.00);
    \node[anchor=west, font=\footnotesize] at (3.1, -1.125) {Choregraphe};
    \fill[gray!75, draw=black] (7.0, -1.25) rectangle (7.4, -1.00);
    \node[anchor=west, font=\footnotesize] at (7.5, -1.125) {HRIStudio};

\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Mean scores by condition across the three primary outcome measures.}
\label{fig:results-chart}
\end{figure}

\section{Supplementary Measures}

\subsection{Session Timing}

W-01's design phase extended to 35 minutes, five minutes over the 30-minute allocation, compressing the trial and debrief to 5 minutes each. Despite this, W-01 declared the design complete rather than abandoning it, and the robot executed a recognizable version of the specification during the trial.

W-02's training phase concluded in 7 minutes, roughly half the standard 15-minute allocation. This reflects HRIStudio's more intuitive onboarding rather than simply W-02's technical background: the platform's guided workflow and timeline-based model required less explanation before the wizard was ready to begin the design phase. W-02's design phase then concluded in 24 minutes, within the allocation, and the trial ran for approximately five minutes.

W-03's design phase extended to 37 minutes, the longest design phase in the study, despite W-03's programming background. The overrun reflects not conventional interface friction but the time spent constructing and then revising an over-engineered design; beginning sessions from W-02 onward enforced the 30-minute transition, so W-03's overrun constitutes a procedural exception noted in the observer log.

W-04's design phase ran 35 minutes without completion, the only session in which the wizard did not finish before the cutoff. Training took 17 minutes, the longest training phase in the study; W-04 entered the design phase with questions about concurrent block execution that presaged later difficulties with branching.

W-05's design phase completed in 18 minutes, the shortest in the study. The overall session lasted 32 minutes, also the shortest. Training took 6 minutes with no questions asked. The contrast between W-04 and W-05 is striking: both come from Chemical Engineering, both with no robotics background, yet the difference in assigned tool produced a 17-minute gap in design completion time and a qualitatively different session experience.

W-06's training phase concluded in 8 minutes and the design phase completed in 21 minutes, both within their allocations. The overall session lasted 37 minutes. The trial ran for approximately three minutes, the shortest trial phase in the study, reflecting a clean execution without errors or researcher interventions.

Across all six sessions, Choregraphe design phases averaged approximately 35.7 minutes; W-01 and W-03 exceeded the 30-minute target but completed their designs before the session time limit, while W-04 was the only wizard cut off by the limit without finishing. HRIStudio design phases averaged 21 minutes across three sessions, all within the allocation. Training phases similarly diverged: Choregraphe training averaged approximately 14.7 minutes, while HRIStudio training averaged 7 minutes.

Figure~\ref{fig:timing-chart} compares the per-condition means for training, design, and total session duration. The gap is concentrated in the design phase and carries through to the total session length; training duration also diverges, with Choregraphe wizards requiring roughly twice as long to reach readiness.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}
    % Axes (1 minute = 0.1 cm, so 60 min = 6 cm)
    \draw[thick] (0,0) -- (0,6.3);
    \draw[thick] (0,0) -- (11.2,0);

    % Y-axis ticks and labels (0--60 minutes)
    \foreach \tick/\val in {0/0, 1/10, 2/20, 3/30, 4/40, 5/50, 6/60} {
        \draw (-0.08, \tick) -- (0, \tick);
        \node[left, font=\footnotesize] at (-0.05, \tick) {\val};
    }
    \node[rotate=90, font=\small] at (-1.05, 3.0) {Mean Duration (minutes)};

    % Horizontal gridlines
    \foreach \tick in {1,2,3,4,5,6} {
        \draw[gray!25, thin] (0.02, \tick) -- (11.2, \tick);
    }

    % Training group — Choregraphe 14.7, HRIStudio 7.0
    \fill[gray!40, draw=black] (1.0, 0) rectangle (2.3, 1.47);
    \fill[gray!75, draw=black] (2.4, 0) rectangle (3.7, 0.70);
    \node[font=\footnotesize] at (1.65, 1.67) {14.7};
    \node[font=\footnotesize] at (3.05, 0.90) {7.0};
    \node[font=\small] at (2.35, -0.38) {Training};

    % Design group — Choregraphe 35.7, HRIStudio 21.0
    \fill[gray!40, draw=black] (4.5, 0) rectangle (5.8, 3.57);
    \fill[gray!75, draw=black] (5.9, 0) rectangle (7.2, 2.10);
    \node[font=\footnotesize] at (5.15, 3.77) {35.7};
    \node[font=\footnotesize] at (6.55, 2.30) {21.0};
    \node[font=\small] at (5.85, -0.38) {Design};

    % Total group — Choregraphe 59.7, HRIStudio 36.7
    \fill[gray!40, draw=black] (8.0, 0) rectangle (9.3, 5.97);
    \fill[gray!75, draw=black] (9.4, 0) rectangle (10.7, 3.67);
    \node[font=\footnotesize] at (8.65, 6.17) {59.7};
    \node[font=\footnotesize] at (10.05, 3.87) {36.7};
    \node[font=\small] at (9.35, -0.38) {Total Session};

    % Legend
    \fill[gray!40, draw=black] (2.6, -1.25) rectangle (3.0, -1.00);
    \node[anchor=west, font=\footnotesize] at (3.1, -1.125) {Choregraphe};
    \fill[gray!75, draw=black] (7.0, -1.25) rectangle (7.4, -1.00);
    \node[anchor=west, font=\footnotesize] at (7.5, -1.125) {HRIStudio};

\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Mean phase durations by condition.}
\label{fig:timing-chart}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Intervention Log}

W-01 generated a high volume of help requests during the design phase, primarily concerning Choregraphe's interface rather than the specification itself. The wizard demonstrated understanding of the task but encountered repeated friction with the tool's connection model, behavior box configuration, and branch routing. This pattern, understanding the goal but struggling with the mechanism, is characteristic of the accessibility problem described in Chapter~\ref{ch:background}.

W-02 generated minimal interventions. No T-type tool-operation assistance was required during the design phase; the wizard navigated HRIStudio's interface without guidance. One H-type intervention was logged during the trial phase, corresponding to the branch step misfire described in the ERS section above.

W-03 generated one C-type intervention during the design phase: a clarification that control-flow logic dependent on onboard speech recognition was outside the study's scope. No T-type interventions were required; W-03 navigated Choregraphe independently throughout the design phase. The absence of T-type interventions for W-03, compared to W-01's high T-type volume, suggests that programming background moderates the interface accessibility problem in Choregraphe: the tool does not block programmers the way it blocked a non-programmer, though it still produced a lower DFS than HRIStudio.

W-04 generated the highest T-type count in the Choregraphe study condition: five total design-phase interventions (4 T-type, 1 C-type), plus one T-type intervention during the trial. The design-phase T marks covered speech content punctuation ($\times$3, items 1--3) and the failed choice block attempt (item 8). The pattern echoes W-01's volume of tool-level friction, concentrated in a wizard with moderate rather than no programming experience.

W-05 generated five design-phase interventions (2 T-type, 3 C-type) and two trial interventions (1 T-type, 1 G-type). The design-phase T marks concerned interface orientation (right-pane editing, branch block configuration); the C-type clarifications concerned conceptual mappings between the written specification and HRIStudio's structural model. Importantly, none of the clarifications blocked design completion, and the final DFS was unaffected. The C-type pattern for W-05 reflects a different kind of engagement from Choregraphe's T-type pattern: questions about what the tool means rather than how to operate it.

W-06 generated two T-type interventions during the design phase, both pertaining to item 6 (narrative gesture): one for an attempted use of parallel action execution, and one for difficulty resetting the robot's posture, for which specific recommended blocks were suggested. W-06 resolved both issues independently after the initial prompts. No interventions of any type were logged during the trial phase, making W-06 the only wizard in the study to complete the trial with zero interventions.

\section{Qualitative Findings}
\label{sec:results-qualitative}

\subsection{Observed Specification Deviation}

A notable qualitative finding from W-01's session was an unprompted deviation from the written specification: the wizard substituted a different rock color in the robot's speech and comprehension question, departing from the ``red'' specified in the paper protocol. This was not a tool failure; the wizard made a deliberate creative choice that the tool did not prevent or flag. The deviation was undetected until the live trial, when it surfaced during execution. This incident illustrates the reproducibility problem concretely: without automated protocol enforcement, wizard behavior can drift from the specification in ways that are invisible until execution, affecting the validity of the resulting interaction data.

No specification deviations from the written protocol were observed in W-02, W-04, W-05, or W-06. W-03 introduced extra nodes beyond the specification's scope, which was addressed by a C-type clarification during design. W-05 added a creative gesture not required by the specification (crouch), which was not a deviation from the protocol's content but an elaboration of the gesture category; it scored within the rubric and was noted for completeness. The speech substitution incident in W-01 remains the only case of content drift from the written specification, and it occurred exclusively in the Choregraphe study condition.

\subsection{Wizard Experience}

W-01 expressed that the training was comprehensible and that the underlying logic of the task was clear. The primary source of frustration was Choregraphe's interface for handling conditional branches and managing the timing of parallel behaviors. Post-session comments suggested that the wizard would not use Choregraphe independently for future HRI work without technical support.

W-02 engaged with HRIStudio's timeline-based interface without requiring tool-operation guidance. The session proceeded efficiently, and W-02's Logic and Philosophy of Science background, combined with moderate programming experience, appeared to support both the technical implementation and the contextual understanding of the interaction scenario. No notable sources of friction were observed during design or trial phases.

W-03 approached the task as a programming challenge, applying Choregraphe's full feature set beyond what the specification required. When the WoZ framing was clarified (specifically that branching should reflect wizard decisions rather than onboard robot logic), W-03 revised the design but the over-engineered structure introduced earlier persisted in the final export and was reflected in the DFS score. W-03 described Choregraphe as a powerful block programming environment, but noted that applying it to this task was harder than its general capability implied, a characterization consistent with the tool-task mismatch the study is designed to surface.

W-04 approached the session with clear engagement and self-driven exploration: independently attempting Choregraphe features (concurrent blocks, choice node) that went beyond what prior instructions had covered. The researcher noted ``Great attempt. Self-driven to explore.'' The SUS score of 42.5 reflects a session where ambition consistently exceeded what the tool's interface could support without additional guidance. W-04's post-session comment that quality was attempted but the platform got in the way is arguably the most direct characterization of the accessibility problem in the dataset.

W-05 presented the clearest demonstration of HRIStudio's accessibility case. With no programming background, W-05 trained in 6 minutes, asked no questions, completed the design in 18 minutes with a creative addition, and ran the trial to completion. The researcher's session notes observed: ``Overall good session. Learning: different backgrounds determine tool curiosity and drive to self-explore.'' W-05's willingness to add a crouch gesture beyond the specification, and their straightforward navigation of the platform without tool-operation confusion, suggests that HRIStudio's design model successfully supports exploratory use by non-programmers without producing the friction pattern observed in the Choregraphe study condition.

W-06 approached the design with a programmer's instinct for thoroughness, initially exploring parallel execution structures for gesture actions and adding posture-reset steps beyond what the specification called for. The two T-type design-phase interventions reflected this exploratory behavior rather than confusion about the task. The extra posture-reset actions in the final design were redundant in practice since the robot was already in the correct starting position, but they did not interfere with the required items and the design achieved a perfect DFS. W-06's trial ran entirely without researcher intervention, producing the only perfect ERS in the study. The session illustrates a different accessibility profile from W-05: where W-05 encountered no interface friction at all, W-06's programming background produced brief exploratory detours that the platform absorbed without compromising the final design or execution.

\section{Chapter Summary}

Across all six sessions, the evidence consistently favored HRIStudio on every primary and supplementary measure. Every HRIStudio wizard produced a perfect design without tool-operation assistance, while all three Choregraphe wizards scored below perfect and the only wizard who did not finish before the session cutoff was in the Choregraphe study condition. On execution consistency, HRIStudio trials reached their conclusion without researcher guidance in every case; Choregraphe produced branching failures in two of three sessions and a content deviation in the third (see Section~\ref{sec:results-qualitative}). Perceived usability followed the same split, with all HRIStudio ratings above the SUS average and all Choregraphe ratings below it. Taken together, these results suggest that HRIStudio's design principles produce measurable gains in both accessibility and execution consistency compared to standard practice. Chapter~\ref{ch:discussion} interprets these findings in the context of the research questions.
