Run this audit before uploading to PCS (Precision Conference Solutions) — CHI does not
use OpenReview or CMT. Every date and cap below was read from the CHI 2027 Papers pages
on 2026-07-08 through search-engine renderings (direct fetches of chi2027.acm.org
were blocked in the verification environment); reopen the live pages before acting on
any number.
chi-topic-selection.CHI's policy is anonymized review of an HCI paper, which creates leak channels that ML venues rarely have: consent-form headers naming the lab, screenshots of a deployed system showing a university logo, video figures with a narrator saying "at our institution," OSF or GitHub links registered to a named account, and app-store pages for the studied prototype. Cite your own prior studies in the third person and keep the citation; scrub everything else.
# Mechanical pre-upload sweep on the PCS package
pdfinfo paper.pdf | grep -Ei 'author|creator|producer' # PDF metadata identity
pdftotext paper.pdf - | grep -nEi 'github|osf\.io|our (lab|university|institution)' | head
texcount -inc -sum main.tex | tail -3 # word count vs the norms
ffprobe -v error -show_entries format=duration,size video-figure.mp4 # video sanity
unzip -l supplement.zip | grep -Ei 'consent|irb|ethics|\.git/' | head # named forms
Treat consent forms and ethics-approval letters as the highest-risk files: they carry institution names by design, so upload templated, de-identified versions.
CHI 2026 formalized an assisted desk reject step run jointly by subcommittee chairs and ACs, with expanded criteria — desk screening is now a real stage, not a formality.
| Finding at audit time | CHI severity | Realistic fix |
|---|---|---|
| Wrong template or altered format | Desk reject | Recompile on the current ACM single-column class |
| Identity leak in PDF, supplement, or link | Desk reject | De-identify; replace links with anonymized archives |
| ~12,000+ words without justification | Desk reject risk | Cut or explicitly justify length in the submission |
| No plausible HCI contribution for any subcommittee | Desk reject at SC/PC screening | Re-frame or re-route before the deadline |
| Video figure missing captions | Review-stage damage | Add a .srt/.sbv file (see chi-supplementary) |
| Weak subcommittee match | Quiet mis-review | Change the designation, not the paper, if the work is sound |
texcount output.Because CHI reviews words against contribution, padding is a visible defect: a 9,500 word paper whose study supports 7,000 words of claims reads as inflated, and reviewers say so. Cut the third restatement of the findings, move instrument details to the supplement, and keep the method section exactly as long as replication requires — no longer.
[CHI submission status] ready / blocked / needs work
[Word count] <n> words vs posted norms; justification needed? yes/no
[Subcommittees] first: <name> / second: <name or none>
[Anonymity sweep] clean / leaks: <pdf | supplement | links | video | forms>
[Desk-reject exposure] <highest-risk item>
[Fix queue] <ordered actions before September upload>