In the third-round co-design workshop, I extracted the Spatial / Temporal / Sensory cultural dimensions from the experiences of teahouses, Sichuan pickles, and roasted duck skewers, and together with the participants formulated the core structure of Anxiety-Free Design Thinking.
However, one crucial question remained unanswered: Can this framework actually be read, recognized, and operationalized within the real fashion industry?

Only an industry-level validation could answer this.

Therefore, in the fourth round, I distributed a questionnaire to 40 industry designers and brand practitioners with 1–6 years of experience and backgrounds in culture-related projects, and eventually obtained 10 valid responses.
This participant group was not chosen randomly—it followed a clear research logic.

---

Why designers with 1–6 years of experience?

Because they sit at the most critical point of the industry’s decision-making chain.
This experience range ensures they:

• have enough experience to evaluate silhouette, structure, materials, rhythm, and supply-chain feasibility;
• still maintain trend sensitivity and awareness of cultural shifts and youth aesthetics;
• work at the design execution level, directly responsible for real product development—not just strategy or management.

In contrast:

• Senior creative directors → too far removed from execution
• Students → lack pragmatic industry judgement

This makes the 1–6 year group ideal for testing:

• Readability — Can the industry understand the framework?
• Viability — Can it actually be executed?

---

Why must participants have experience with culture-related design projects?

Because they understand when culture can be read—and when it is at risk of being misread.

Given that Anxiety-Free Design Thinking is derived from cultural experience rather than symbolic motifs, participants needed to:

• understand risks of cultural mistranslation (generalisation, exoticisation, superficiality),
• know how cultural context becomes material, silhouette, or visual rhythm,
• be able to judge whether a cultural experience can be communicated through design.

In other words, they evaluate interpretability, not just aesthetics.

---

Why use sketch-based professional reading?

Because the aim of Round 4 was not to generate concepts, but to validate:

• Can the three dimensions be read directly from the sketches?
• Can cultural experience be transformed into an actionable design language?

Therefore, the questionnaire was built around professional decision-making logic:

• 7-point rating of Spatial / Temporal / Sensory intensity
• identifying cultural cues in each sketch
• diagnosing which structures or materials weakened the “anxiety-free” experience
• open-ended suggestions for improving emotional and cultural clarity

This allowed participants to evaluate the concept through the exact lenses they use daily:

silhouette / construction / material logic / temporal rhythm / atmosphere.

---

Why include High Fashion × Commercial Brands × Independent Labels × Independent Designers?

Because Chengdu’s future fashion identity will not be shaped by a single type of brand—
it will emerge from interactions across multiple layers of the fashion ecosystem.

Although I do not know which specific category each respondent belongs to, I intentionally invited participants from four brand tiers to ensure multi-level evaluation:

---

① High Fashion

Examples referenced: The Row, Another Tomorrow

These designers can assess:

• whether Chengdu’s experiential dimensions hold international aesthetic value,
• whether spatial ease, temporal rhythm, and sensory warmth can enter global design language.

They answer the question:
Can Chengdu speak to the world?

---

② Mid-range Commercial Brands

Examples referenced: ICICLE, ZUCZUG, JNBY

They evaluate:

• which cultural experiences are actually producible,
• what can be manufactured and sold,
• what aligns with realistic material and supply-chain rhythms.

They answer the question:
Can Chengdu enter the real industry pipeline?

---

③ Independent Labels

Examples referenced: Hanqing Ding, ForPoem, Butterfly Princess**

Independent labels bring:

• aesthetic experimentalism,
• sharper sensitivity to cultural uniqueness,
• less commercial constraint.

They answer the question:
Can Chengdu generate new creative languages?

---

④ Independent Designers

Independent designers offer:

• the most intuitive, free-form aesthetic reading,
• the strongest cultural instinct,
• judgement unconstrained by market logic.

They answer the question:
Do the three dimensions have cross-disciplinary explanatory power?

---

Summary

Through this multi-layered participant structure, Round 4 verifies not only whether the framework is “liked,” but whether it is:

• legible to professional eyes,
• operational within technical constraints,
• culturally interpretable across brand categories,
• aligned with the tastes and mindsets of the next generation shaping Chengdu’s identity.

In essence, these participants collectively answered the most important question: Can Chengdu’s cultural experience become a contemporary fashion language, one that the industry can read, execute, and pass on

Chinese Version

在第三轮干预中，我已经从“茶馆—四川泡菜—冒烤鸭”的文化体验中抽象出 Spatial / Temporal / Sensory 三个维度，并与共创小组共同归纳出 Anxiety-Free Design Thinking 的核心结构。然而，一个关键问题仍未被验证：这套框架是否真的能在时尚行业中被读懂、被识别、被执行？

这是只有通过行业层面的检验才能回答的问题。

因此，在第四轮干预中，我向 40 位具 1–6 年经验、并参与过文化相关项目的行业设计师与品牌从业者发放问卷，并最终获得 10 份有效回应。
但这些参与者并非随机选择，而是基于明确的研究逻辑。

---

为什么是“1–6 年经验”的设计师？

因为他们处在最关键的判断链条这个经验区间意味着参与者同时具备：

足够经验，能读懂廓形、结构、材料、节奏、供应链的实际可行性；

仍保持敏锐度，紧贴新趋势、文化流动、青年市场审美；

处于设计执行层，真正负责品牌内部的设计生产，而不是策略或管理。

相比之下：

• 资深创意总监 → 距离执行现场较远
• 学生 → 缺乏行业判断逻辑

因此，这一群体最适合检验 Anxiety-Free Design Thinking 的：

• 可读性（readability）：行业能否看懂？
• 可执行性（viability）：实际能否落地？

---

为什么必须具备“文化相关项目经验”？

因为他们能判断文化是否会被误读

Anxiety-Free Design Thinking 本质上来自文化体验的抽象，因此参与者必须：

• 理解文化符号转译的风险（泛化、异国化、浅层化）
• 熟悉文化如何被材料、廓形、视觉节奏结构化
• 具备判断：某种文化体验能否通过设计被读懂

---

为什么采用“专业视觉阅读（sketch-based professional reading）”？

让行业用他们最熟悉的方式来验证概念。与第三轮共创不同，第四轮的核心目标不是生成新概念，而是验证：

• 三维度是否能在草图中被读出来？
• 文化体验是否能被转化为可执行的设计语言？

因此我设计了围绕专业逻辑的问卷结构：

• 7 分量表判断 Spatial / Temporal / Sensory 强度
• 识别草图中的文化线索
• 判断哪些结构或材料削弱了“无焦虑体验”
• 开放式建议如何增强情绪与文化表达

这种逻辑让行业参与者能够依据其日常经验，从：

版型 / 结构 / 材料 / 节奏 / 氛围

来评估 Anxiety-Free Design Thinking。

---

为什么特别选择 High Fashion × 商业品牌 × 独立品牌 × 独立设计师？

因为成都未来的时尚身份，是多层结构共同塑造的。为了确保这一框架在行业的不同层级都能成立，我刻意从四类品牌中邀请参与者，虽然我并不知道这10位设计师是来自于哪个类别的层级。包括：

① High Fashion（高端时尚）

代表：The Row、Another Tomorrow**

他们能判断：

• 成都文化的体验结构是否具备国际化审美价值？
• 空间松弛、时间节奏、感官温度能否进入全球语境？

他们的视角检验了“成都是否具有世界语言”。

---

② 中端商业品牌

代表：ICICLE 之禾、ZUCZUG 素然、JNBY

他们能回答：

• 哪些体验可以真实落地？
• 哪些表达方式能被生产、被市场接受？
• 哪些材料结构与供应链节奏可行？

他们检验了“成都能否进入现实系统”。

---

③ 独立品牌

代表：Hanqing Ding、ForPoem、蝴蝶公主等**

独立品牌提供：

• 审美前沿性
• 高度实验性
• 对文化独特性更敏感的判断

他们检验了“成都能否成为新的设计语言”。

---

④ 独立设计师

他们提供：

• 最自由的审美阅读
• 最敏锐的文化直觉
• 不受商业约束的创作判断

他们检验了“三大维度是否具有跨专业解释力”。