An often overlooked perspective is connecting the codes "autonomy, being heard and listened to, independent life, decision-making" with places, people, objects, and time [time could be the past, the present, and projection to the future]. By asking these questions, one can differentiate codes. For example, autonomy--where? with whom? how? what objects? Next, one can examine by dimensions and degrees. Dimensions and degrees are very exciting--degrees is "how much?" or "what level?" Dimensions would be what factors make up a category, such as independent life? For example, "being heard and listened to" necessitates a reciprocity with someone else--perhaps the other person is the real variable and category. Another example is examining emotional coding--feelings, self-efficacy, assertiveness, and aggressiveness, for example. Could there be fake agency? Fronting to appear as having agency? Think distal/proximal causes.

Are there any codes/categories missing? Look at absences, both within subject, between subject, and compared to other studies (if applicable). Be ok with major and minor themes, and there can even be outliers or stubs that do not fit.

Finally, once one varies the presentation of each code, one gets a mosaic that is beyond a single category. Examining objects and settings is something that greatly enriches my own studies. Be ok with everything not fitting. All too often qualitative researchers "sweep" everything into an overly coherent narrative. Part of this is distinguishing inferences from what the participants said/did. Close inferences vs far inferences make a difference. There is no right or wrong answer, and much of what you do will go back to your purpose/aims, research questions, and methodology/methods.

Thank you so much for your reply, David. It certainly answered my question.