| name | oopsla-supplementary |
| description | Use when deciding what rides along with an OOPSLA submission beyond the 23-page body — appendices, full proofs or mechanizations, extended tables, anonymized code — keeping the package double-anonymous, self-consistent with the PDF, and honest about what reviewers are obliged to read versus what a revision can absorb. |
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
