## 6 Discussion
### Limitations and Future Research  
Despite its contributions, this study presents some limitations. While the proposed UX prototype was validated via expert consultation, it has not undergone empirical testing involving direct interaction with children in real-world settings. While expert feedback confirmed that the system design decisions align with established clinical practices and developmental theory, the absence of empirical data limits the ability to determine how children engage with the system in practice, or whether this theoretical alignment results in real-world behavioural outcomes. In particular, it remains unclear whether the system effectively supports short-term engagement and long-term developmental outcomes, such as sustained habit formation or improved self-regulation. Future research should address these questions through longitudinal studies designed to evaluate the durability and developmental effects of the system over time.  
Another potential concern involves the use of digital scaffolding. While the system is designed to support the internalisation of behavioural boundaries through emotionally guided interactions, repeated reliance on external prompts--especially those involving character-based metaphors--may inadvertently hinder the development of autonomous self-regulation in some users. Future research should investigate whether these scaffolds gradually diminish with continued use or risk reinforcing dependency, especially across varying developmental profiles.  
The physical design of the Interactive Charger also presents contextual limitations. Its dependence on a tangible accessory may constrain accessibility in mobile or resource-limited environments. Furthermore, the symbolic framing of the character 'going home to rest' may not resonate equally with all children, varying with individual temperament, cognitive maturity, or cultural background. Future investigations should examine how the physical UX extension functions across diverse contexts and assess whether alternative metaphors or interaction formats are needed to ensure inclusivity and developmental appropriateness.  
The consultation process also presents limitations in scope. While this study involved three highly experienced domain experts, their insights may not comprehensively capture the diversity of cultural, pedagogical, or clinical viewpoints relevant to digital interventions in early childhood. Broader engagement with stakeholders across multiple disciplines and sociocultural backgrounds is recommended to strengthen the ecological validity and generalisability of future design initiatives.  
Finally, future research should empirically evaluate the system with preschool-aged children in naturalistic settings. Recommended methods include in-app behavioural tracking, structured observation, and longitudinal caregiver reporting. These approaches would enable a systematic assessment of outcomes such as voluntary disengagement, resistance to transition, and delay of gratification. Future iterations may also benefit from participatory co-design involving children and caregivers, as well as integrating adaptive UX mechanisms tailored to individual temperament and parental mediation styles. In particular, empirical studies should investigate how emotionally structured UX interactions influence the transitions from reactive (hot EF) to reflective (cool EF) processing. Longitudinal data could also help clarify whether repeated exposure to ritualised UX routines strengthens self-regulation capacity over time.