A research paper’s conclusion acts as a standalone functional segment following fixed genre frameworks, whose communicative goals rely on organized rhetorical moves and sub-steps. Most existing genre analysis compares writing structures across distinct subjects or languages, yet few examine structural disparities between subfields within one single discipline. Translation Studies splits into Translation Theory and Interpreting Studies, two branches with vastly different research logics, though their conclusion structures have never undergone systematic comparison — this forms the core research question of the present work. Combining corpus contrast and genre analysis, this study uses Yang & Allison’s move-step framework alongside Kanoksilapatham’s frequency standards. It analyzes 100 SSCI journal conclusions split evenly between the two subfields, covering six research themes via LancsBox, Excel, DeepSeek, and manual coding. Results show theoretical papers adopt an argumentative mode with frequent evaluation and deduction, while interpreting papers stick to descriptive summaries with rare extended discussion. Such gaps mirror their divergent research cultures, filling intra-disciplinary genre research gaps and informing translation and academic writing teaching.