Discussion Writing Guide

Introduction:  Broad context -> Specific gap -> Your question
Discussion:    Your findings -> Broader literature -> Implications

Standard Structure:
  1. Summary of key findings (1-2 paragraphs)
  2. Interpretation and comparison with literature (bulk of section)
  3. Limitations (1-2 paragraphs)
  4. Implications and future directions (1-2 paragraphs)
  5. Conclusion (optional, or as separate section)

def outline_discussion(findings: list[dict],
                       literature_connections: list[dict],
                       limitations: list[str],
                       implications: list[str]) -> dict:
    """
    Generate a structured discussion outline.

    Args:
        findings: List of dicts with 'result' and 'interpretation'
        literature_connections: Dicts with 'finding', 'related_work', 'comparison'
        limitations: List of limitation statements
        implications: List of implication statements
    """
    outline = {
        "opening_paragraph": {
            "purpose": "Restate the research question and summarize key findings",
            "template": (
                "This study examined [research question]. "
                "The principal finding was [main result], "
                "which [supports/contradicts/extends] [hypothesis or expectation]."
            ),
            "tips": [
                "Do NOT repeat numbers from Results -- summarize in words",
                "State whether hypotheses were supported",
                "Lead with the most important finding"
            ]
        },
        "interpretation_paragraphs": [
            {
                "finding": f["result"],
                "interpretation": f["interpretation"],
                "literature": next(
                    (lc for lc in literature_connections
                     if lc["finding"] == f["result"]), None
                )
            }
            for f in findings
        ],
        "limitations": {
            "items": limitations,
            "tip": "Frame limitations honestly but not apologetically"
        },
        "implications": {
            "items": implications,
            "tip": "Distinguish practical implications from theoretical ones"
        }
    }
    return outline

Pattern 1 - Consistent with prior work:
  "Our finding that X is associated with Y is consistent with
   Smith et al. (2022), who reported a similar relationship in
   [different context]. This convergence across [populations/methods]
   strengthens the evidence that [mechanism/explanation]."

Pattern 2 - Contradicts prior work:
  "In contrast to Jones et al. (2021), who found no effect of X
   on Y, our results suggest a significant positive relationship.
   This discrepancy may be explained by [methodological differences,
   population differences, measurement differences]."

Pattern 3 - Extends prior work:
  "While previous studies have established that X affects Y,
   our results extend this finding by showing that this effect
   is moderated by Z, suggesting [new insight]."

Pattern 4 - Novel finding:
  "To our knowledge, this is the first study to demonstrate [finding].
   One possible explanation is [mechanism]. However, this interpretation
   should be treated with caution until [replication/additional evidence]."

DO NOT:
  - Simply restate results with numbers (that is the Results section)
  - Introduce new results not presented in the Results section
  - Overclaim: "This proves that..." (use "suggests," "indicates")
  - Ignore findings that contradict your hypothesis
  - Speculate without clearly labeling it as speculation

DO:
  - Interpret what the results MEAN, not just what they ARE
  - Address unexpected or negative findings
  - Explain WHY your results may differ from others
  - Connect findings to theory or conceptual frameworks
  - Use hedging language appropriately (may, might, suggests, appears)

Weak framing:
  "A limitation of this study is that the sample size was small."

Better framing:
  "The sample size (N=45) may have limited statistical power to
   detect small effects. However, the effect sizes observed for
   our primary outcomes were medium to large (Cohen's d = 0.6-0.8),
   suggesting that the main findings are robust. Future studies
   with larger samples could examine whether the non-significant
   trends observed for secondary outcomes reach significance."

Structure for each limitation:
  1. State the limitation clearly
  2. Explain its potential impact on the findings
  3. Note any mitigating factors
  4. Suggest how future work could address it

Theoretical implications:
  "These findings support the [theory name] by demonstrating that
   [specific contribution to theory]."

Practical implications:
  "These results suggest that [practitioners/policymakers] should
   consider [actionable recommendation] when [context]."

Methodological implications:
  "Our comparison of [methods] suggests that [method recommendation]
   is preferable when [condition], which may inform future study design."

Future research directions:
  "Three avenues for future research emerge from these findings:
   (1) [replication in different context], (2) [testing the proposed
   mechanism], and (3) [extending to related outcomes]."