## 2 Materials and Methods
### Conceptual Framework and Validation  
The guidelines presented in this study are intended to serve as a reference for designers undertaking similar projects. They aim to provide concrete examples of how theory and practice can converge, suggest ideas, and illustrate possible problem-solving approaches. While their content is not analyzed here according to the canonical principles of _research through case studies_ -- an approach recognized for its scientific validity and established methodologies since at least the 1990s [39] -- they could nonetheless serve as foundational material for future case study-based research or more in-depth investigations on the subject. It is worth emphasizing, however, that the guidelines, given their novelty, are essentially a project in themselves. While architects have long utilized design as a research tool [40], [PERSON]'s 1993 study [41] formalized the concept of _research through_ (art and) _design_. [PERSON] emphasized the unique epistemology of such disciplines, proposing that knowledge in these fields develops not only through research _for_ (supporting artistic creation) or _into_ (analyzing artistic objects) but also _through_ the practice itself. This perspective, which prioritizes a flexible, intuition-driven approach over the quantitative methodologies of the hard sciences, has since shaped numerous studies on the ontological, epistemological, and methodological aspects of research through design [42]. A central concern within this discourse is identifying effective conceptual and practical tools for communicating research outcomes. Scholars contend that neither _text_ (e.g., reports, essays) nor the _object_ (i.e., the design) alone is sufficient, advocating for hybrid tools that integrate and bridge these media [43]. This would accommodate the peculiarity of architectural design as research, whose nature lies\"in-between\" pure research and pure design [43; 44]. Another critical challenge in such research is the validation of its achievements. Designs, whether conceptual or realized, cannot, by their nature, be assessed using traditional methods such as reproducibility. To address this, two alternative validation principles, adapted from other research approaches, have been identified as particularly effective: _Recoverability_ and _Theoretical Sensitivity_[42] (pp. 6-7). The recoverability principle requires that the design process be transparent and traceable, allowing others to critically examine its rigor. If the process demonstrates methodological rigor, this rigor serves to validate the outcomes. The principle of theoretical sensitivity emphasizes the researcher's ability to draw on personal and professional experiences, as well as relevant literature, to interpret the research situation and data in innovative ways, unlocking their theoretical potential. The responsibility of demonstrating that this principle has been adhered to rests with the researcher. Given the design-oriented nature of this study and its aim to contribute to the research-through-design discourse, ensuring scientific consistency is essential. Accordingly, the work has been structured with close adherence to the principles outlined above. Regarding the appropriateness of communication tools, the study integrates the guidelines and their framework (_text_) with their illustration through a project by the authors (_object_), ensuring that these dimensions are cohesively interwoven rather than presented independently (Sections 5-7). The validation challenge is addressed in Section 8 using the principles of theoretical sensitivity and recoverability. The former is evaluated by comparing the results with the professional experiences of ATMosfera in Milan and [PERSON]'s contribution in the academic literature, which provided the methodological framework for the guidelines (cf. Section 2.1). This comparison reflects on the theoretical potential of the study's achievements.