oopsla-supplementary

OOPSLA Supplementary Material

The 23-page cap on an OOPSLA initial submission excludes references, required

statements, and appendices — so "supplementary" at OOPSLA is less a separate

upload category than a layering decision: what must live in the reviewed

body, what sits in appendices the body can survive without, and what waits

for the artifact stage after acceptance. The controlling rule set is the

current call (待核实 per cycle for upload mechanics on HotCRP); the

controlling strategy is the two-round review model.

The layering rule

A reviewer deciding among Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, and Reject

must be able to reach a verdict from the body alone. Appendices exist to

let a skeptical reviewer verify, not to let the body skip its argument.

| Layer | Belongs there | Test |

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

| Body (≤23 pp) | Claim statements, mechanism, proof sketches, headline evaluation, threats | Could a reviewer bucket the paper reading only this? |

| Appendix / supplement | Full proofs, extra benchmarks, case-study transcripts, calculus metatheory details | Does the body state what the appendix establishes? |

| Artifact (post-acceptance) | Runnable code, raw data, mechanization sources | Referenced by the Data-Availability Statement, not needed for the verdict |

Anonymity applies to every byte

The supplement is reviewed under the same double-anonymous rules as the PDF:

• Strip repository remotes, commit author lines, CI configs, and ~/-rooted

paths from any code archive; check binary blobs (notebooks, PDFs) for

embedded author metadata.

• Anonymized-archive services or a scrubbed zip both work; a "private repo we

can add reviewers to" does not — access events identify reviewers, which

breaks the process from the other direction.

• Rename internal project codenames that are Googleable to your group.

Consistency: the silent killer across rounds

Because a Major Revision returns to the same reviewers next round, any

mismatch between body and supplement is remembered. Before each round's

upload:

Cross-check pass:
  numbers   every value quoted in body == value in appendix tables (script it)
  theorems  numbering and side conditions identical body vs full proof
  configs   flags/versions in appendix match the reproducibility ledger
  claims    nothing in the supplement contradicts a scoped claim in the body
  pointers  every "see Appendix X" resolves; no orphan appendices

What NOT to put in the supplement

• Rescue material — text that exists because the body overran 23 pages.

Compress the body instead (oopsla-writing-style); reviewers are not

obliged to read overflow prose, and relying on it undermines the bucket

decision.

• Unfinished experiments flagged "preliminary." In a revision-capable

venue, half-results invite a Major Revision demanding the full version;

either finish them or cut them and scope the claims down.

• De-anonymizing generosity — screenshots of dashboards, grant-numbered

cluster names, or user-study consent forms bearing the institution.

Revision-round dynamics

An invited revision gets 25 pages: the extra room is for absorbing what

reviewers demanded, which often means promoting appendix material into the

body. Structure appendices from day one as promotable units (self-contained,

labeled, with their own claim sentences) so a Minor Revision is an editing

job rather than a rewrite (oopsla-review-process).

Output format

[Layering] body-sufficient verdict possible: yes/no + misplaced items
[Anonymity] supplement scrub: clean / findings
[Consistency] cross-check pass results (numbers/theorems/configs/claims/pointers)
[Promotable units] appendices ready to absorb into a revision: <list>
[Cut list] material that should not ship at all