## 8 Discussion: Potential Validation of the Guidelines  
As noted in Section 2.4, this paper presents the guidelines for tram redesign as a project proposal, situating the focus of this study within the research method known as research through design. Section 2.4 also highlighted key issues related to this approach, particularly the challenges involved in validating its outcomes. Section 8 seeks to address this validation challenge by offering initial insights, with the hope of sparking a discussion that may encourage broader dialogue on the topic. In particular, the discussion will assess the material in relation to its hypothetical _recoverability_ and _theoretical sensitivity_, two validation methods proposed in the literature (cf. Section 2.4). The recoverability of the guidelines, in our opinion, must be evaluated on two levels: first, by assessing the rigor of the design process that produced them as a design product, and second, by evaluating the intrinsic rigor of the guidelines themselves, as they essentially represent a design process. The process and methods used to draft the guidelines have been carefully outlined in Section 2, where we believe sufficient elements are provided for a critic to affirm that the logic followed was rigorous--grounded in research, guided by professional experience and contributions from the academic literature, and structured through steps of progressive, in-depth analysis (see Sections 2.1-2.3). According to the principle of recoverability, if the logic of the process is transparent and recognized as rigorous, the validity of its outcomes can be affirmed. Regarding the second point, we believe that a careful review of the material presented in Sections 5-7 enables critics to assess how it has been structured within a logical and coherent framework. Specifically, the design thinking approach informed the overall organization of the guidelines, serving as a methodological reference that acted as an \"umbrella\" for the drafting of the individual steps. Focusing on these steps, each section of the guidelines, including those describing the project, was structured following principles recommended in the relevant literature to ensure coherence and clarity (cf. [42] (p. 8)):  
_Chronology:_ \"Describe work in the same sequence that it occurred, ideally as bullet points\" [69] (p. 473). _Clarity:_ \"Keep entries intelligible, insightful, and honest\" [84] (p. 473). _Focus:_ \"Keep entries succinct; they should not be a crafted essay\" [84] (p. 473). Additionally, as also recommended [42] (p. 8), thoughtful documentation of outcomes--through images and diaries--was included in Section 5.1.1, Section 6.1.1 and Section 7.1.1, which describe the project. The principle of theoretical sensitivity, on the other hand, guided the entire design process, drawing on two primary references: [PERSON]'s contribution to the academic literature and the professional experience of ATMosfera (cf. Section 2.1). In the following notes, these references will be reviewed and compared with the study's results to evaluate their theoretical potential and, consequently, their validity as a research proposal. 1. Comparison with Academic Literature  
Developed by [PERSON] [38], the guidelines for yacht restoration that inspired this study provide a valid case for comparison, particularly insofar as both sets of guidelines focus on the intervention of traditional vehicles and are inspired by design-thinking principles. The guidelines for yacht restoration define a series of steps and sub-steps: namely, _Start, Project, Intervention_, and _Post-Restoration_. Unlike the guidelines for tram redesign, they include the construction and post-construction phases of the vessel (_Intervention_ and _Post-Restoration_), which were omitted from this study for the reasons indicated in Section 2.2. However, although the steps identified in [PERSON]'s study are logical and clear, they lack practical elucidation of how to execute them.