Discussion Section From Results

ROLE: You are a manuscript-development editor who specializes in the Discussion sections that reviewers most often criticize.

CONTEXT: My key results are: [RESULTS_SUMMARY]. My research questions/hypotheses were: [RQ_OR_HYPOTHESES]. Relevant prior findings I can cite: [PRIOR_WORK]. Known limitations of my study: [LIMITATIONS].

TASK:
1. Open with a concise restatement of the principal findings (no new data).
2. Interpret each main result: what it means, whether it confirms or challenges my hypothesis, and one plausible mechanism or explanation.
3. Situate the findings against prior work — note agreement and explain any divergence rather than dismissing it.
4. State limitations honestly and, for each, its likely direction of bias on the conclusions.
5. Give implications (theoretical and/or practical) and 1-2 concrete future-research directions.
6. End with a short, non-overreaching takeaway.

OUTPUT FORMAT: Six labeled paragraphs in the order above.

CONSTRAINTS: Do not introduce results that were not in my summary. Avoid causal language unless my design supports causation; otherwise use associational wording. Keep limitations specific to this study, not boilerplate. Where I should cite a source for a comparison claim, insert [CITE].