Most results chapters I read are technically correct and analytically empty. Every table is labeled correctly, every test is reported with the right statistics — and by the end, I still don't know what any of it means for the actual research question.
Reporting vs. interpreting
Reporting says: the intervention group scored significantly higher than the control group (p < .01). Interpreting says: this result supports [specific claim], and it's inconsistent with [the alternative explanation you have to rule out].
A results chapter without interpretation reads like a data dump with headings — and a committee's job is to test whether you understand what your own data is telling you.
The question your committee is actually asking
Underneath almost every question about a results section is one real question: do you know what this number means, or did you just run the test correctly? Reporting a statistic proves you can use the software. Interpreting it proves you understand your field — and that's the difference committees are actually testing for.
A finding without an interpretation isn't a result yet — it's just a number waiting to be explained.
A simple rewrite test
Go through your results chapter and find every reported finding — every p-value, every theme, every descriptive statistic. After each one, add a sentence that starts with "This means" or "This suggests." If you can't finish that sentence in one line, you don't have an interpretation yet — you have a fact sitting by itself.
Where to add the missing piece
The fix is rarely a full rewrite. Usually it's one sentence added after each finding, connecting it back to your research question. Chapters that pass committee review almost always follow the same shape: report, then interpret, then briefly connect back to the argument. Chapters that get sent back are almost always missing the middle step.