naacl-supplementary

NAACL Supplementary

An ARR submission bound for NAACL has four storage tiers with different

review contracts, and misfiling material across them is a self-inflicted

wound. The tiers, from strongest contract to weakest:

| Tier | Counted? | Reviewer obligation | Belongs here |

|---|---|---|---|

| Content pages (8 long / 4 short) | Yes | Must read; sole basis of judgment | Claims, method, main results, decisive analysis |

| Limitations (+ optional ethics) | No | Read and audited | Real scope boundaries, risk discussion |

| Appendix (same PDF, after refs) | No | May consult | Full prompt sets, extra tables, proofs of preprocessing |

| Uploaded supplements (archives) | No | Discretionary | Code, data samples, guidelines, raw outputs |

The operating rule: a reviewer who reads only tier 1 must be able to

accept the paper. If a claim's only support lives in tier 3 or 4, the claim

is unsupported for decision purposes.

The NAACL-specific space pressure: examples in other languages

Papers on Spanish, Portuguese, Haitian Creole, or Indigenous American

languages carry a cost English-only papers never pay: every example needs

the original line, a gloss, and a translation — three lines where a

monolingual paper spends one. Budget for it deliberately:

• Keep two or three load-bearing glossed examples in the content pages —

the ones your error analysis actually turns on.

• Move the example gallery to the appendix, one pointer per phenomenon.
• Never compress by dropping the gloss line; an unglossed example excludes

every reviewer who does not read the language, which at a

Nations-of-the-Americas venue is a strange own goal.

• Interlinear-gloss LaTeX packages (gb4e, expex) interact badly with

tight column budgets; test early, not the night before.

Limitations: uncounted but not unread

The Limitations section costs no pages, and reviewers check whether the

weaknesses they found appear in it. Write it as the paper's honest edge:

• which language varieties and domains the claims do not extend to;
• resource asymmetries (a 7B model per language vs. one multilingual run);
• annotation limits — single-dialect annotators, small agreement samples;
• what the community-data terms prevented you from testing or releasing.

A Limitations section that predicts the reviews reads as mastery; one that

lists "compute was limited" reads as filler.

Appendix construction discipline

1. Every appendix section gets at least one forward reference from the

content pages; unreferenced appendices are invisible.

1. Order appendix sections by reference order, not by writing order.
2. Tables that exist only to prove thoroughness (per-seed dumps, all-prompt

grids) go last, clearly labeled as completeness material.

1. Nothing decision-critical enters the appendix after the response window

— reviewers scored the paper without it.

Tier migration during revision cycles

Material moves between tiers as the paper evolves, and each direction has

a rule:

• Promotion (appendix → body): legitimate any time before upload;

after reviews, promote only what the response window discussed —

reviewers scored the body they read.

• Demotion (body → appendix): the standard compression move; leave a

one-line summary plus pointer at the original location so the argument's

spine stays visible.

• Resubmission reshuffles: if a prior cycle's reviewer ignored

appendix evidence, the fix is usually promotion plus a change-summary

line saying so — not a complaint that the evidence existed.

• Never migrate silently between the reviewed version and camera-ready:

the tier map of the accepted paper is part of what was accepted.

Upload-tier packaging check

# Pre-upload sweep of the supplement archive
unzip -l supp.zip | grep -Ei '\.git/|DS_Store|__pycache__|\.ipynb_checkpoints'
# Anonymity: usernames, lab paths, letterheads
unzip -p supp.zip '*.md' '*.py' '*.txt' | grep -nEi '/(home|Users)/[a-z]+|university|lab\b'
# Size and openability on a clean machine
du -h supp.zip && unzip -t supp.zip > /dev/null && echo OK

Allocation walkthrough

A 9.5-page draft on named-entity recognition for three code-switched pairs:

the per-pair ablation grid (0.7 pages) moves to the appendix behind one

summary row; four of six glossed examples move to an appendix gallery; the

dialect-coverage caveat moves out of a footnote into Limitations where it

is free; the annotation guidelines PDF and scoring scripts go to the upload

tier. Result: 8.0 content pages, no claim orphaned outside tier 1.

Output format

[Tier map] <major item -> tier -> justified?>
[Orphaned claims] <claims supported only outside content pages>
[Gloss budget] <examples kept in body / moved / at risk>
[Limitations audit] <predicted objections covered?>
[Archive sweep] clean / findings