## 5 Conclusions
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Question** & **Survival Scenario** & **Rescue Scenario** & **Complete Scenario** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{1. How frequently should the following information appear?} & - Most tools: “Only if anomaly” & - Higher frequency than survival & - Majority: “Constantly” \\  & - Robust vision, Heart rate, & - Signs of life, Robust vision, & - Augmented Glfaction, People, \\  & Breath rate: “Constantly” & Wireless finder: “Constantly” & C2-FR Connection, Temp/Humidity: \\  & - Wireless Finder, Black box info: & - Varied opinions on other tools & - “Constantly” or “Only if anomaly” \\  & - & \"Never\" & - Rare cases: “Never” \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{2. Maximum number of functionalities visible at one time?} & - Fireighters: 4-6 & - Generally higher than survival & - Around 9 on average \\  & - Search and Rescue: 4-8 & - Fireighters: 9-10 & - EMG: S \\  & - EMS: 4-10 & - Other tasks: 9-10 & - Hazemat Incidents: 13 \\  & - Hazemat Incidents: 6 or 12 & - Variability: 6-14 & - Other tasks: 8-10 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{3. Priority order of functionalities to be shown?} & 1. Heart rate & 1. People & 1. Signs of life \\  & 2. Radar & 2. Signs of life & 2. People \\  & 3. Breath rate & 3. Radar & 3. Robust vision \\  & 4. Augmented Glaction tool & 4. Robust vision & 4. Wireless finder \\  & 11. Wireless finder & 11. Temperature, humidity & 11. Benefit rate \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{4. What else would you add, remove, or change?} & - No specific additions/removals mentioned. Focus on varied tools depending on tasks. & - Similar diversity in priorities & - Priority varies by task \\  & & - Augmented Glaction important & - EMS: People, Augmented Glaction \\  & & - Hazemat Augmented Glaction, & - Hazemat Augmented Glaction, \\  & & - for EMS and Hazemat, less so & Breath, Heart rate \\  & & - General: Focus on victim detection \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 14: Summary of survival, rescue, and complete scenarios. **Author Contributions:** Data curation, original draft preparation, review and editing, I.A. ; software and validation, X.O. and A.F.G. ; formal analysis and investigation, V.R. and B.L.-G.; resources and visualization, I.A. and I.G.O. ; project administration, funding acquisition I.G.O. and A.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. **Funding:** This research work was supported by the EU Horizon 2020 Grant Agreement no. 101021836 for the RESCUER (first RESPonder-Centered support toolkit for operating in adverse and infra-trUcturelless EnviRomments) project. [[https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101021836](https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101021836)]([https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101021836](https://cordis.europa.eu/project/id/101021836)), accessed on 5 April 2024. **Institutional Review Board Statement:** The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Universidad Politecnica de Madrid (protocol code RFRSTFIOAA-FAG-DATOS-20230608, 21 June 2023). **Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. **Data Availability Statement:** The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to legal reasons. **Acknowledgments:** We extend our gratitude to all the FRs who participated in the survey, with special thanks to [PERSON] (GERA), [PERSON], [PERSON] (SUMMA), and [PERSON] (ENSOSP) for their valuable contributions to the design of the questionnaire. We also appreciate the contribution of photographer [PERSON]. **Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflicts of interest.