aejmic-rebuttal

name	aejmic-rebuttal
description	Use when drafting the response letter and revision plan after an American Economic Journal: Microeconomics (AEJ: Micro) R&R. Structures the reply to theory referees (correctness, generality, exposition) and editor; it does not re-derive the result (see aejmic-theory-model).

R&R Rebuttal & Response Letter (aejmic-rebuttal)

When to trigger

• An AEJ: Micro decision letter arrived with an R&R (minor or major)
• You have referee reports and need a response-letter strategy
• A referee disputes a proof, the generality, or the framing and you must decide concede vs. defend
• You are sequencing the revision so the most important changes land first

How to respond to theory referees

AEJ: Micro referees are subject-matter experts who verify proofs and judge generality and exposition. The response letter must be precise, respectful, and point-by-point. Three recurring axes:

• Correctness: a disputed proof step. Either fix it (and show the corrected argument in the letter), or demonstrate the step is valid with the missing detail. Never wave it away.
• Generality / robustness: "does it extend to X?" Decide whether to (a) prove the extension, (b) add it to aejmic-robustness as a result, or (c) explain precisely why the boundary is where it is and add a remark. State the cost of each.
• Exposition / scope: "the mechanism is buried" or "the claim is too broad." Re-frame via aejmic-writing-style and bound the claim explicitly.

Letter structure

• A short cover note to the editor summarizing the main changes and how the central concern was met.
• Point-by-point replies: quote the comment, state the change, point to the page/line and the new/updated proposition or proof.
• Concede gracefully where the referee is right; defend with argument (not assertion) where you disagree, and offer a compromise (a remark, a restricted claim) when full concession is wrong.
• Keep a changelog of every result that moved (new propositions, relabeled lemmas, added extensions).

Triage the reports before drafting

Not all comments carry equal weight. Sort them:

• Central (editor-flagged): the concern the editor named as decisive — resolve it first and lead the cover note with it.
• Correctness blockers: any disputed proof or claim — must be fully closed, never deferred.
• Generality requests: decide per comment whether to prove, add a robustness result, or bound with a precise argument.
• Exposition / framing: usually cheap to grant; granting them buys goodwill for the points you defend.

Reading the decision letter

• A minor R&R means the result stands; tighten and answer. A major R&R means at least one referee doubts the contribution or a proof — treat the central concern as the gate to acceptance.
• Distinguish what the editor requires (binding) from what a single referee merely suggests (negotiable). Address all, but prioritize by the editor's framing.

Checklist

• Cover note to the editor: main changes + how the central concern was addressed
• Every referee comment answered point-by-point with a page/line pointer
• Disputed proof steps fixed or rigorously defended (no hand-waving)
• Each "does it extend?" met by a proof, a new robustness result, or a precise boundary argument
• Claims re-bounded where a referee found them too broad
• Concede where right; defend with argument where not; offer compromises
• Changelog of moved/added results kept for the editor and referees
• Replication package / proof appendix updated to match the revision

Anti-patterns

• "We thank the referee and have addressed this" with no concrete change or pointer
• Defending a disputed proof step by restating it instead of completing it
• Adding every requested extension uncritically, bloating the paper (curate via aejmic-robustness)
• Conceding a correct result under pressure when a bounded claim was the right answer
• Letting the proof appendix or deposited code drift out of sync with the revised results

Worked vignette (illustrative)

Referee 1 disputes the uniqueness claim; Referee 2 asks for a continuum extension; the editor wants the contribution sharpened. Strategy: (1) Correctness — uniqueness held only under a tie-breaking rule, so restrict the claim to "essentially unique" and prove it, conceding the over-statement. (2) Generality — the continuum extension survives, so add it as Proposition 5 and cite it in the letter. (3) Scope — rewrite the intro to foreground the broad mechanism. The cover note tells the editor the central concern (uniqueness) is resolved by a precise, defensible restatement.

Output format

【Decision】minor / major R&R
【Editor cover note】central concern + how met
【Point-by-point】each comment → change → page/line + result pointer
【Correctness】disputed steps fixed/defended? [Y/N]
【Generality】extend / new result / boundary argument — chosen per comment
【Concede vs. defend】log of each call
【Changelog + package sync】results that moved; appendix/code updated? [Y/N]
【Next step】resubmit via AEA system with the point-by-point response letter