FIELD REPORT 2026 · §7

Discussion + future work

What the numbers say, what they don't, and where the next study should look

IN DEVELOPMENT FILED · 2026-05-07 TAGS · DISCUSSION · FUTURE-WORK · LIMITATIONS
ABSTRACT
ON FILE DRAFT · 2026-05-07

Interpretation of §4 results plus an honest list of what the single-greenhouse study cannot answer. This is the chapter most subject to revision before defence — the section headings are locked, the conclusions are not.

This chapter is the most thesis-author-driven of the seven. The section headings below are scaffolding; the conclusions land after §4 results are finalised. Every bullet here is a placeholder.

§7.1 · What the numbers say

[High-level interpretation of §4 steady-state + failure-condition results. Hold one to two paragraphs per measurement variable. Refer back to the §3.2 hypotheses and state which were retained / rejected.]

DRAFT — populates after §4 windows complete.

§7.2 · What the numbers don’t say

The study is one greenhouse, one operator, one year, one EU-Central region, one set of sensors, one cloud provider. The numbers are informative; they are not generalisable without further work. Specific non-claims:

§7.3 · Threats to validity

§7.4 · Future work

Open questions the next iteration should attempt:

§7.5 · Practical recommendation (single-operator, single-greenhouse)

[One paragraph. What would the author actually deploy if asked today? The thesis isn’t a sales pitch; this section is about engineering honesty.]

DRAFT — written last, after §4 numbers and §7.1 interpretation are locked.


Status: structural draft v0.1, 2026-05-07. Citation: https://plantir.garden/thesis/2026/discussion is locked per ADR-011 — note that conclusions inside this chapter will change before defence; the URL stays put.