> I don't know when things started to go wrong, but the work eventually began to stagnate. Tasks were taking longer than anticipated. I began dreading team meetings because I had to address that things weren't getting done. As we approached the end of the semester, students needed time to study for finals, which meant even less work getting done. The project turned from something that I woke up excited to work on, to something I hated even thinking about. I avoided the topic as much as I could when talking to my professor.
This is the turning point. Before this point, there was progress and enthusiasm. After, stagnation and revulsion. Something happened. The author knows it, but can't elaborate.
Some have offered advice on the writing aspect ("vomit draft"). Writing doesn't appear to be this author's problem - it's working on the project itself. The author "hates" even thinking about it. No research progress means nothing to write about. Writing more effectively won't solve the problem because the problem isn't writing.
The problem is motivation. The author started with a project that was going to be awesome. Then little things started to go wrong and didn't get fixed. Those little things snowballed into big things. The disappointment and shock of watching an awesome project with buy-in from authority figures and lavish resources reverse so decisively has undermined the author's ability to move the project forward.
I'm speculating, but these things tend to follow a similar pattern.
I'd recommend that the author try to understand the turning point. What actually happened? What was the first indication that something was not right with the project? What did the author do about it? What pattern of behavior can the author pick out in responses to unexpected problems?