## 6 Discussion  
With a success rate of 100%, every pair of participants agreed upon a final configuration within the set test duration. This outcome highlights the feasibility of the system in supporting collective decisions in a dynamic and immersive environment. Only one pair quit the session before the estimated time, as one of the participants needed to attend a university class. Therefore, it can be considered a statistical outlier, unrelated to any system interface design issue or episode of cybersickness, supporting the assertion that the 25 min session length was properly estimated.  
To further investigate the distribution of individual SUS scores, potential correlations were analyzed to provide a comprehensive examination of their relationship with sample parameters such as age, gender, and prior experience with VR devices.  
No significant correlation was found between users' demographic data and the distribution of usability scores, which appeared to be largely random, thus ruling out a functional dependency between these two parameters (Figure 11).  
The slope (r = \(-\)0.024) of the regression line indicates a weak negative correlation, showing that as participants' age increased, the SUS score tended to decrease slightly.  
Figure 11: SUS–age correlation diagram with a negative slope (r = \(-\)0.024). (Regression line shown in red; mean SUS of 80.83 marked in green.)  
However, since the \(p\)-value = 0.899 >> * \(p\) (<0.05), it can be concluded that this correlation did not hold statistical significance.  
Similarly, the correlation between gender and SUS scores was negligible (Figure 10 left), with a percentage difference of 1.38% between the average values assigned by each category. Remarkably, the scores of male participants exhibited a greater deviation.  
Regarding VR familiarity (Figure 12 right), experienced users provided scores within a broader range than non-experienced participants, even though the average results were similar (percentage difference < 0.3%). This might indicate that experienced users conducted more technical and informed evaluations, while inexperienced participants offered valuable insights into the system's impact on end users without specific expertise.  
The feedback indicates that the experience was generally perceived as immersive, engaging, and well executed, with a graphical and interactive system that exceeded users' expectations. However, targeted improvements in customization, navigation, and technical optimization could address the issues that emerged, making the overall experience even smoother and more satisfying. With a greater variety of options, a more intuitive control system, and a more dynamic environmental context, this application could reach an even higher level.  
Following the analysis of the results, it is possible to attempt to answer the RQs:  
* **RQ1**: Supported--MAGIC's usability falls within the \"acceptable\" range of the SUS metric.
* **RQ2**: Partially supported--MAGIC is feasible for sailing yacht configuration, but improvements in navigation and collision systems are required for effective space evaluation.
* **RQ3**: Supported--Photorealistic graphics are essential for a convincing digital preview.
* **RQ4**: Supported--Additional content significantly enhances the experience.
* **RQ5**: Not supported--Demographic data and VR experience do not significantly affect the SUS score, but further investigation with a wider sample is needed.