final submissions update part 1

thesis/chapters/08_discussion.tex

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 \chapter{Discussion}
 \label{ch:discussion}
 
-This chapter interprets the results presented in Chapter~\ref{ch:results} against the two research questions established in Chapter~\ref{ch:evaluation}, situates the findings within the broader literature on WoZ methodology, and identifies the limitations of this study. With all six sessions now complete, this chapter presents the full dataset and draws conclusions across the complete sample.
+This chapter interprets the results presented in Chapter~\ref{ch:results} against the two research questions established in Chapter~\ref{ch:evaluation}, situates the findings within the broader literature on WoZ methodology, and identifies the limitations of this study.
 
 \section{Interpretation of Findings}
 
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ The first research question asked whether HRIStudio enables domain experts witho
 
 The six completed sessions provide directional evidence on the accessibility question. Across the three Choregraphe wizards, design fidelity scores were 42.5, 65, and 62.5, yielding a condition mean of 56.7. Across the three HRIStudio sessions, all three wizards achieved a DFS of 100. No HRIStudio wizard required a T-type intervention that reflected an inability to operate the platform; the T-type marks logged for W-05 concerned interface orientation, and those logged for W-06 concerned gesture execution details (parallel execution and posture-reset blocks), neither of which constituted fundamental operational barriers. By contrast, Choregraphe produced design difficulties across all three sessions. W-01 required T-type assistance for connection routing and branch wiring. W-03 required no T-type interventions but over-engineered the design, adding concurrent execution nodes and attempting onboard speech-recognition logic that falls outside the WoZ paradigm. W-04 required T-type assistance for speech content punctuation and a failed choice block attempt.
 
-The SUS scores reinforce this pattern. Choregraphe SUS scores were 60, 75, and 42.5 (mean 59.2), all at or below the average usability benchmark of 68~\cite{Brooke1996}. HRIStudio SUS scores were 90, 70, and 70 (mean 76.7), all above the benchmark. The Choregraphe condition produced the lowest single SUS score in the study (42.5, W-04), a wizard who described the platform as getting in the way of their attempt. The HRIStudio condition produced the highest (90, W-02). With programming backgrounds now balanced across conditions---each condition contains one wizard with no programming experience, one with moderate experience, and one with extensive experience---a cross-background comparison is possible: W-01 (non-programmer, Choregraphe, SUS 60) versus W-05 (non-programmer, HRIStudio, SUS 70); W-04 (moderate programmer, Choregraphe, SUS 42.5) versus W-02 (moderate programmer, HRIStudio, SUS 90); W-03 (extensive programmer, Choregraphe, SUS 75) versus W-06 (extensive programmer, HRIStudio, SUS 70). HRIStudio scores exceed Choregraphe scores at the None and Moderate levels; at the Extensive level the scores reverse by five points (W-03 Choregraphe 75 vs.\ W-06 HRIStudio 70), suggesting that extensive programming experience largely attenuates the tool-level usability difference.
+The SUS scores reinforce this pattern. Choregraphe SUS scores were 60, 75, and 42.5 (mean 59.2), all at or below the average usability benchmark of 68~\cite{Brooke1996}. HRIStudio SUS scores were 90, 70, and 70 (mean 76.7), all above the benchmark. The Choregraphe condition produced the lowest single SUS score in the study (42.5, W-04), a wizard who described the platform as getting in the way of their attempt. The HRIStudio condition produced the highest (90, W-02). With programming backgrounds now balanced across conditions---each condition contains one wizard with \emph{None} programming experience, one with \emph{Moderate} experience, and one with \emph{Extensive} experience---a cross-background comparison is possible: W-01 (\emph{None}, Choregraphe, SUS 60) versus W-05 (\emph{None}, HRIStudio, SUS 70); W-04 (\emph{Moderate}, Choregraphe, SUS 42.5) versus W-02 (\emph{Moderate}, HRIStudio, SUS 90); W-03 (\emph{Extensive}, Choregraphe, SUS 75) versus W-06 (\emph{Extensive}, HRIStudio, SUS 70). HRIStudio scores exceed Choregraphe scores at the \emph{None} and \emph{Moderate} levels; at the \emph{Extensive} level the scores reverse by five points, suggesting that extensive programming experience largely attenuates the tool-level usability difference.
 
 The most striking accessibility finding comes from W-05: a Chemical Engineering faculty member with no programming experience trained in 6 minutes, completed a perfect design in 18 minutes with no operational confusion, and ran the trial to conclusion. This outcome directly addresses the accessibility claim. HRIStudio's timeline-based model and guided workflow allowed a domain novice to implement the written specification correctly on their first attempt, without the interface friction that blocked or slowed all three Choregraphe wizards. Session timing data underscores the difference: Choregraphe design phases averaged 35.7 minutes (two overruns, one incomplete), while HRIStudio design phases averaged 21 minutes (all three within the allocation). Underlying this difference is a structural property of the two tools: HRIStudio's model is domain-specific to Wizard-of-Oz execution, so wizard effort is channeled toward implementing the specification more completely rather than elaborating the tool's architecture. Choregraphe's general-purpose programming model makes the opposite available, and both W-03 and W-04 took it, spending time on concurrent execution structures and a speech-recognition-driven choice block that the WoZ context does not support. No HRIStudio wizard had that option, and all three scored 100 on the DFS.