ITCS Supplementary

ITCS gives you three places to put content — the body, the appendix (part of the submitted PDF), and the full version on arXiv/ECCC/ePrint — and the split is governed by one rule: anything a reviewer must read to judge the paper lives inside the submitted PDF. Because ITCS has no hard page limit and no rebuttal, the appendix is generous but load-bearing: you cannot promise "details in the full version" for a proof that decides acceptance, and you cannot answer later if a reviewer cannot follow. This skill decides what goes where.

The governing principle: decision-criticality

Sort every piece of content by whether a reviewer needs it to decide:

• Body (first ~10 pages): everything needed to grasp the contribution and judge its novelty — the model, the motivation, the main theorem statements, proof ideas, and the novelty delta. This is the merits window the PC actually reads (see itcs-writing-style).
• Appendix (same PDF): the complete proofs of central claims, full definitions, and any technical development too long for the body. This is not optional reading — it is where the "complete proofs of all central claims" requirement is satisfied.
• Full version (arXiv/ECCC/ePrint): the permanent, exhaustive record — extended discussion, additional corollaries, alternate proofs, and the same central proofs mirrored. It may contain more, but nothing decision-critical may live only here.

The rule that trips people up

No central proof may live only in the external full version. The PC is not obligated to open your arXiv posting. A reviewer who reaches "the proof of our main theorem is in the full version [ref]" and stops there will — correctly — treat the claim as unproved in the submission. Put every load-bearing proof in the submitted PDF's appendix.

Deferring to the full version is acceptable only for genuinely peripheral content: a fourth corollary, a longer historical discussion, an alternate proof of an already-proved result.

Use the no-page-limit generously but honestly

ITCS's lack of a hard limit is a gift with a catch:

• Do put full proofs in the appendix rather than compressing them into unreadability. A dense, unverifiable body proof is worse than a clear appendix proof with a body sketch.
• Do not pad the merits window. The first ~10 pages are judged on clarity of the idea; extra length there dilutes the innovation. Push technical bulk to the appendix, not into the intro.
• Signpost precisely. Every deferred proof gets an explicit "proof in Appendix C" and every appendix section says which body claim it discharges. A reviewer should never hunt.

Content-placement table

Anonymity and the full version

Posting a full version is encouraged under lightweight double-blind, but keep the split consistent with the anonymity strategy (see itcs-submission):

• The submitted PDF (body + appendix) omits author names, affiliations, and emails.
• The arXiv/ECCC/ePrint full version may be non-anonymous — that is permitted and normal.
• Do not let a cross-reference in the submission point at the named preprint in a way that reads as a deliberate identity reveal; a neutral "a full version is available" is enough.

Output format

[ITCS content-split status] clean / decision-critical-content-misplaced
[Merits window] model+motivation+results+deltas within ~10 pages, no padding? yes/no
[Appendix] complete proofs of ALL central claims present in the submitted PDF? yes/no
[Full-version leak] any load-bearing proof deferred ONLY to arXiv/ECCC/ePrint? list them
[Signposting] every deferred proof cross-referenced to its appendix section? yes/no
[Fix queue] <ordered; move any decision-critical content into the PDF first>