ATC Supplementary

ATC gives you four places to put content, each read by a different reviewer under a different rule: the two-page extended abstract (round one, two reviewers), the 12-page body (round two, 3-4 reviewers), the appendix (optional reading), and the artifact (opened during round two and evaluated post-acceptance). Placing content correctly is a strategic decision, not a formatting one, because reviewers are not required to read the appendix and a round-one reviewer may read only the abstract.

The placement rule

Anything that decides acceptance goes in a place the deciding reviewer is required to read.

• Round-one acceptance is decided from the extended abstract → the problem, contribution, headline result, and honest cost must be in the abstract.
• Round-two acceptance is decided from the body → every load-bearing design detail, baseline, and result must be in the 12 pages.
• The appendix holds support a curious reviewer may consult — extra graphs, proofs, parameter tables — never a result the verdict depends on.
• The artifact holds runnable evidence and full data — it strengthens trust and earns badges, but the paper must be judgeable without executing it.

What goes where

The extended abstract is not a teaser

The most common ATC mistake is treating the extended abstract as a marketing blurb that depends on the paper. It is a self-contained argument that must survive being read instead of the paper (see atc-writing-style). Move the real problem, the real contribution, and a real result into it; do not defer them to "as shown in the paper."

The appendix is not overflow

The second common mistake is using the appendix to dodge the 12-page limit by exiling results a reviewer must weigh. If a graph is needed to believe a claim, it belongs in the body; if it is merely reassuring, it belongs in the appendix. Ask: would a reviewer who skips this change their score? If yes, it is body content.

Consistency across the four places

• The number in the abstract, the body, the appendix, and the artifact output must match. Divergent numbers across places are a credibility hit and a frequent reviewer catch.
• The claim-to-experiment map (see atc-experiments, atc-reproducibility) should let a reviewer trace each body claim to an artifact script and each artifact output back to a body figure.
• Keep all four double-blind: an appendix or artifact often leaks identity (hostnames, owner strings, system names) even when the body is clean.

Decision procedure

[For each result] which round decides it? -> place it where that round's reviewer must read
[Abstract test]   can a reviewer accept/reject from the 2 pages alone? if not, move content in
[Body test]       is any acceptance-critical claim only in an appendix/artifact? if yes, move it in
[Appendix test]   would skipping this change a score? if yes, it is body content, not appendix
[Consistency]     do the numbers match across abstract/body/appendix/artifact? anonymity intact?

Output format

[Extended abstract] self-standing, decision-complete for round one? yes/no
[Body] all acceptance-critical content inside 12 pages? leaks to appendix/artifact?
[Appendix] optional-only? nothing score-changing exiled here?
[Artifact] runnable evidence + full data; paper judgeable without it? anonymized?
[Move queue] <content to relocate, with target location and reason>