The first significant shift in the research occurred through an encounter with an archive of lettering tools. One particular instrument claimed that a single tool could be used to construct all the letterforms and accents of the Latin alphabet. What attracted my attention was not simply the efficiency of the device, but the relationship it established between maker, gesture and outcome. The tool contained a set of rules. The maker did not simply draw a letter independently; the form emerged through a particular interaction between hand and instrument. This prompted a broader reflection on contemporary design tools, particularly digital ones. Digital tools are often valued for their accessibility, flexibility and responsiveness. They can expand what a maker is able to produce. Yet accessibility does not necessarily mean neutrality. Every tool contains affordances, limitations, defaults and assumptions that influence what can be made and how it can be made. The concern is therefore not that digital tools necessarily eliminate authorship. Such a claim would be too simplistic. Accessibility can equally expand creative agency. The more precise question is whether the conditions through which agency is distributed become visible to the maker. When a tool becomes increasingly seamless, responsive and automated, its participation in the creative process can become difficult to perceive. This led to an interest in experimentation with tools as a way of reclaiming awareness of the relationship between maker and instrument. Instead of treating the tool as a transparent means toward a predetermined outcome, I became interested in making its constraints, operations and materiality perceptible. This enquiry informed the work developed during the Aalto workshop. A lettering guide was developed into a handheld paper-embossing tool, later conceived as a kind of visit-card maker. The tool requires two people to operate it: each person holds one side while coordinating the movement required to roll a piece of paper through the mechanism. The resulting card is embossed with a short introduction such as “Hi, my name is …”. The significance of the tool is therefore not only in what it produces. Its operation requires two bodies. The object cannot be produced by one person acting independently. The tool establishes a temporary relationship between people through the coordination of their hands. The idea of a handshake became an important conceptual reference: the handshake is not simply represented by the object but becomes embedded in the conditions through which the object is produced. This suggests a different understanding of the tool. A tool does not merely extend the capabilities of an individual body. It can also organise relationships between bodies. A second experiment developed this question through a sound-drawing machine. The machine was conceived to translate a conversation between two people into a visual drawing. Rather than recording only the semantic content of speech, the experiment focused on qualities such as vocal frequency, intensity, weight and tension within the conversation. Again, the technological system does not simply document an existing experience. It selects certain qualities, translates them and produces another material trace. These experiments gradually shifted the research from the question of what technology does for the user toward the question of what kinds of relationships a technological system produces.