| name | rss-supplementary |
| description | Use when assembling RSS (Robotics: Science and Systems) supplementary material under the separate one-week-later deadline — deciding what leaves the self-contained main PDF, cutting robot video that functions as evidence rather than promotion, anonymizing footage and archives, and packaging appendices and trial logs. |
RSS Supplementary
Assemble the supplement as the paper's evidence annex. RSS 2026 gave it its own
deadline (February 6, one week after the paper, AoE — verified 2026-07-08) and its
own constraint: the CFP requires the main PDF to be self-contained, so the supplement
may deepen belief but must never be required for it.
The division of labor
| Content | Main PDF | Supplement |
|---|
| Claim, protocol summary, headline results, failure distribution | ✔ | |
| Full proofs / derivations | sketch | ✔ complete |
| Per-trial logs and extended tables | totals | ✔ raw |
| Robot footage | referenced | ✔ files |
| Code/data archive | availability sentence | ✔ archive |
| Anything a reviewer needs to believe the claim | ✔ always | never alone |
Litmus test per item: "if no reviewer opens the supplement, does the paper still
stand?" The 2026 rules make opening it discretionary, so plan for the case where
nobody does.
Robot video as evidence, not trailer
The venue's culture reads supplementary video the way it reads tables — so cut it
like data, not like a launch video:
- Continuous takes for headline behaviors. An uncut clip at stated real-time
speed is the video equivalent of a raw log. Label any speed change on-screen; an
unlabeled 4x cut reads as concealment once noticed.
- Show the failure modes. Two or three representative failures, labeled by
category, matched to the paper's failure table. This single choice most separates
evidence-video from promo-video.
- Cover the conditions. A clip per experimental condition beats a montage of the
best condition; reviewers map video to the experiment matrix.
- No music, no title animations, no lab branding — the last is an anonymity
requirement, not just taste.
Anonymization for physical media
Footage leaks identity through channels prose never has:
- Frame contents: faces, badges, lab signage, posters, distinctive robot liveries,
window views. Crop, mask, or reshoot.
- File metadata: camera serials, GPS tags, creator fields in video containers, and
archive paths embedding usernames — strip before packaging.
- Voice-over accents and names in ambient audio — prefer captions or replace audio.
Archive hygiene
- One top-level README orienting a reviewer in under a minute: contents map, entry
command, expected runtime.
- Include the trial ledger and analysis scripts (
rss-reproducibility); exclude
caches, checkpoints beyond the necessary, and any credential.
- Test the archive on a machine that has never seen the project; broken relative
paths are the most common silent failure.
- Remember the ordering gift: the paper freezes first. The supplement week is for
packaging existing evidence — footage shot after January 30 supports nothing the
reviewers are judging.
Video storyboard template
Draft the cut on paper before opening an editor:
00:00-00:10 task + claim, one caption line (no narration needed)
00:10-01:10 headline behavior: ONE continuous take, "1x speed" on screen
01:10-01:50 one clip per experimental condition, captioned with condition ID
01:50-02:20 failure gallery: 2-3 labeled failures matching Table <n> categories
02:20-02:40 transfer/perturbation condition, uncut
02:40-end (optional) mechanism visualization tied to a paper figure
Every segment maps to something in the PDF; anything that maps to nothing is
promotion and gets cut.
What actually gets opened
| Item | Odds a reviewer opens it | Design consequence |
|---|
| Video file | High | Carry condition coverage + failures here |
| Appendix PDF | Medium | Mirror main-text section order; standalone-readable |
| Code archive README | Medium | One-minute orientation or nothing else gets read |
| Raw trial ledger | Low, but decisive when opened | Include; it settles protocol disputes |
| Checkpoints / large binaries | Very low | Ship recipes, not bulk |
Cycle-volatile parameters
Size caps, allowed formats, and video length limits for 2026 were not publicly
surfaced (待核实); read them off the OpenReview submission form itself rather than
assuming any venue's conventions.
Appendix craft
- Mirror the main text's section order and numbering scheme so a reviewer chasing
"Appendix C from §4" lands without hunting.
- Open each appendix section with one sentence saying which body claim it deepens;
orphaned appendix material is invisible under discretionary inspection.
- Restate the protocol being extended before extending it — the appendix is read
days after the body, if at all.
- Full derivations, per-object result breakdowns, sensitivity sweeps, and extra
qualitative figures belong here; the body keeps the sketch and the headline.
- Do not let the appendix quietly introduce new claims: anything claim-bearing
that appears only in the supplement violates the self-containment rule from the
reviewer's side of the table.
Output format
[Self-containment test] passes without supplement / fails: <item>
[Video cut] conditions covered <y/n> | failures shown <y/n> | speeds labeled <y/n>
[Anonymity sweep] frames / metadata / audio -> findings
[Archive check] README / entry command / clean-machine test
[Form limits] <caps from OpenReview form, or 待核实>
