pods-author-response

PODS Author Response

Use this after PODS reviews are released. PODS has two distinct speaking turns, and conflating

them is a common mistake: a short rebuttal (about 48 hours, a few thousand characters) right after

reviews, and — if you receive a revision decision — a revision cover letter accompanying a

resubmitted paper that a shepherd re-reads. Both stay double-anonymous: do not reveal authors,

affiliations, or a named system, even to strengthen a point.

Triage (both turns)

• Answer what affects correctness first: a claimed error in a proof, an unstated assumption, a

mismatch between an upper and a lower bound, or an out-of-scope objection.

• Distinguish a misreading (the reviewer misunderstood a definition or missed an existing appendix

proof — fixable now, in the rebuttal) from a real gap (a step that genuinely needs to be written

— fixable only in the revision).

• Keep every word anonymous: no institution, no funder, no real system name, no "our earlier work"

phrased in the first person.

Turn 1 — the 48-hour rebuttal

Short and correctness-focused. The rebuttal exists to **clarify misunderstandings and factual errors

via pointers to the submitted paper** — not to present new mathematics.

• Point to the exact definition, lemma, or appendix proof the reviewer overlooked ("the proof the

reviewer requests is already in Appendix B, Lemma 7").

• Concede a genuine error plainly and state whether it is fixable in a revision.
• Do not paste a new proof the reviewers cannot verify in 48 hours; promising an unwritten proof

does not move a theory review — it flags the gap.

Turn 2 — the revision cover letter (the distinctive PODS move)

A revision (minor or major) is a genuine shepherded second round. The cover letter is a **change

ledger**: for every required item, either make the change and show exactly where, or explain precisely

why it is unnecessary — and satisfy the shepherd.

[R1.1] Required: "the complexity bound in Thm 3 is not justified"
       -> Action: DONE  | added the full accounting in §4.2 and the deferred steps in Appendix B
       -> Where: §4.2 (para 2), Appendix B (Lemma 7, revised)
[R1.2] Required: "state the assumption the lower bound rests on"
       -> Action: DONE  | Thm 4 now labeled as conditional on OMv; stated at point of use (§5)
[R2.1] Suggested: "extend the dichotomy to self-joins"
       -> Action: DECLINED (with reason) | self-joins need a different reduction; out of scope for the
          revision window, now stated as an explicit open problem (§7) rather than implied

The rule that turns a revision into an acceptance: address every required item. An item neither

done nor explicitly and defensibly declined is what the shepherd's read punishes.

Reviewer pushback patterns

| Pushback | What it signals | PODS-ready response |

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

| "The proof of Thm X has a gap" | Correctness doubt | Fix the step in the revision and show it; if it is a misreading, point to the existing proof in the rebuttal |

| "The lower bound does not match the upper bound" | Optimality unproven | Close the gap, or scope the optimality claim to the model actually proved |

| "This assumption is hidden/unstated" | Rigor gap | Label the conditional result at its point of use; state the assumption explicitly |

| "The model trivializes the result" | Modeling objection | Defend the model as realistic, or adjust it and re-derive; do not ignore |

| "Overlaps prior result Y" | Novelty/delta doubt | Sharpen the theorem-level delta; add the missing comparison of results |

Anonymity in the response (easy to slip)

• Refer to your own prior work in the third person, as in the paper.
• Describe revisions without linking to an identifying arXiv preprint or homepage; reference the

in-PDF appendix location instead.

• Do not thank a named collaborator, advisor, or funder inside the rebuttal or cover letter.

Calibration

• Respond to the criterion the reviewer raised (correctness, tightness, modeling, novelty), not the one

you would rather defend.

• Length and format norms for both turns vary by cycle; confirm the current instructions before sending.
• The shepherd decides the revised paper; make the paper, not the letter, carry the corrected

mathematics.

Output format

[Turn] 48-hour rebuttal / revision cover letter
[Priority issue] <reviewer concern>
[Decision dimension] correctness / tightness / modeling / significance / clarity
[Change ledger] <required item -> DONE/PARTIAL/DECLINED + where in paper/appendix>
[Anonymity check] <no identity leak in the response: passed/issues>