Conclusion
Answer the question. Do not dodge it.
The most common failure in IA conclusions is summarising what the analysis found without ever delivering a verdict. Students describe the problem, recap the tools, and stop. The conclusion must do more than that: it must answer the research question.
What the conclusion needs to do
Answer the research question directly
State your judgment in the opening sentence. Do not build up to it. The examiner has read 1,100 words of analysis and needs to know where you landed. Be definitive: "The evidence strongly supports..." or "On balance, [company] should not..." Hedging everything equally is not a conclusion - it is a summary.
Summarise the key evidence
Briefly reference the two or three findings that drove your verdict. This is not a second analysis - no new tools or data here. Just remind the reader of what built the case.
Return to the key concept
What does this case study reveal about how your concept works in practice? Not just "Nike showed sustainability is important" but something more specific: what did this investigation teach you about how sustainability - or change, ethics, creativity - actually operates in real business decisions? This is Criterion A coming full circle.
Acknowledge limitations honestly
What did you not have access to? What would have made the research stronger? Be specific: "Access to internal sales data by region would have allowed a more precise analysis of..." is more credible than "More research would be helpful." Criterion E rewards intellectual honesty - identifying what your research could not establish is a strength, not a weakness.