# Discussion and conclusion writing guide

Separate what the study found from what the authors infer.

## Discussion sequence

1. Restate the primary finding in evidence-calibrated terms.
2. Explain the proposed mechanism or interpretation.
3. Compare the finding with prior evidence, including disagreements.
4. State practical or theoretical implications within scope.
5. Describe limitations and how they affect interpretation.
6. Identify the next experiment or analysis required to extend the claim.

## Limitation taxonomy

Classify each limitation:

- **internal validity:** bias, confounding, leakage, measurement, model misspecification;
- **external validity:** population, dataset, site, environment, hardware, distribution;
- **construct validity:** metric or proxy does not fully represent the intended concept;
- **statistical conclusion:** power, uncertainty, multiplicity, instability;
- **reproducibility:** unavailable data/code, undocumented settings, stochasticity;
- **operational:** compute, latency, cost, safety, usability.

For each limitation, state affected claim, direction of risk, and mitigation or required follow-up.

## Conclusion contract

Use three functions:

1. problem and approach in one compact statement;
2. strongest supported result and its scope;
3. implication without introducing new evidence.

Do not repeat contribution bullets, add new citations, or claim broad real-world impact from a narrow benchmark.

## Language calibration

| Evidence strength | Preferred language |
|---|---|
| Direct replicated evidence | demonstrates, consistently shows |
| Single controlled study | shows, supports |
| Indirect/mechanistic evidence | suggests, is consistent with |
| Exploratory observation | indicates, motivates further study |

Avoid treating statistical significance as practical importance.

