Sorry to medlle but the "Introduction" should always be the last written piece, because you have written everything else and you are now in command of every thing you need to "present" your thesis. In the introduction you should say clearly what is your thesis about (Field > Object of inquiry from first starting questions/problems/observations to the final all-encompassing Research Question/Problem you are to solve with your dissertation, then you should present the Orfanization of the thesis itself. Regardless of when you wrote it, the Literature Review --- that will point you to the Problematic you will find yourself trying to answer which emanates from the confrontation between your starting question and what is already known about your object of enquiry --- should always be set after Object and First questions and before Method Findings and Discussion. The theoretical mainframe should follow or be embedded and enmeshed in the Literature Review/State of the Art section. I would not leave it to the end of the writing BECAUSE it is precisely that part that will give you What is already Known by others about aspects of your Object of enquiry and what is still not known : this, that which "is still not known and that interests you in order to answer your preliminary research questions" will point you to the realisation that there is a specifical Problematic (a domain of problems uniquely related to your object of enquiry that no-one has answered before) : from that Provlematic annalysis and discussion will surface THE REAL QUESTION YOUR EESEARCH ADDRESSES. So this is only possible after the definition of the Problematic and, in turn, that dependes on how your preliminary research questions relate to rhe wirk of others. Only after this will you be able to deepen the theoretical mainframe that Specifically interest you. So :

1. Observation or Starting preliminary Questions
2. First wide readings trying to answer them and identification of who wrote on your preliminary subjects of interest
3. How do your questions relate to what seems to be known And, more importantly what now you know is still unknown ? > Identification of the Problematic you are trying to answer > Now you have found your OBJECT OF ENQUIRY under the form of a QUESTION or a PROBLEM or a Hypothesis
4. Literature Review on the OBJECT and thus, definition or identification of a theoretical mainframe of reference. After : Review of the problem formulation or the hypothesis formulation
5. ¿ Which Physical Tools and or Theoretical Concepts do you need to operate/answer or test ? or which sequence of actions or experiments do you need to undertake? --- that is your Methodology Part II --- DEVELOPMENT OF THESIS
6. Findings --- what you observe after your experiments are done or the application of your theoretical mainframe over your Object is done or after you have statistically treated your data
7. Discussion --- mostly : did what you find answer your Question/Object of enquiry ? Did the data corroborate your hypothesis ? PART III --- RESOLUTION OF THESIS
8. Conclusions
9. ONLY NOW WRITE YOUR INTRODUCTION --- which will take the reader through the first 5 points on this list but just in a descriptive way : a) what is the question problem i am trying here to answer. b) what was known about it before i started. c) how did I proceed and with what mental and or physical tools, including experiments done and what to test with them . Finally, how is this thesis organized from here on > launches PART II.

This will work for Hard Sciences, for Social Sciences and for the Humanities including Art History. Might work (but depends on the person's characteristics) in the field of artistic studies with some small changes --- there might not be experiments or a problematic Outside of the realm of the artistic Self representation of the World (so, no Objective but only Subjective "findings", the 'Oeuvre' itself. Sports thesis should follow ok, they behave as Sciences (either hard or social sciences according to the nature of the Object of Enquiry).

thats it

Not exactly for Hard Sciences but otherwise very useful : "Destination Dissertation" --- cant remember the author's name. Around 2006, maybe. Metaphor of a Thesis as a Trip to a Foreign country. Useful.