SenSys gives you an unusual amount of room outside the page cap: references and appendices are unlimited. That freedom is a trap if it becomes a dumping ground. The discipline is to keep the ≤ 12-page (full) or ≤ 6-page (short) body carrying the argument, and to place everything a reviewer might want but does not need to judge the claim in the appendix — reachable, but not in the way of the story.
For each piece of content, ask: must a reviewer read this to believe the headline claim?
| Content | Body (in the cap) | Appendix (unlimited) | HotCRP field |
|---|---|---|---|
| The mechanism and its constraint model | Yes | — | — |
| The headline energy/latency/accuracy results | Yes | — | — |
| Full measurement protocol (instrument settings, calibration steps) | Summary only | Full detail | — |
| Extra ablations and secondary plots | The load-bearing ones | The rest | — |
| Derivations / proofs of a bound | Statement + intuition | Full proof | — |
| Complete hardware BOM and wiring | — | Yes | — |
| Deployment logs, per-node uptime tables | Summary | Full tables | — |
| Title, abstract, topics, conflicts | — | — | Yes (verbatim-match PDF) |
| Anonymous artifact link | Cited in text (blinded) | — | If the form asks |
Because appendices are free, the body must be ruthless: every paragraph either advances the
sensing-pain → mechanism → measured-behavior arc (sensys-writing-style) or moves to the
appendix. A body padded with protocol detail reads as unfocused; a body that states results and
points to App. B for the protocol reads as confident. Reviewers are not obligated to read
appendices, so nothing load-bearing may hide there — if the claim depends on it, summarize it
in the body and expand in the appendix.
Supplementary artifact links are the classic anonymity leak. During double-blind review:
[ ] Repo link is an anonymized mirror (no username, no lab/org in the URL).
[ ] Zenodo/OSF deposit has authors anonymized.
[ ] No link resolves to a personal, lab, department, or company domain.
[ ] Trace/data archives carry no author metadata or identifying paths.
A single un-blinded GitHub URL in the supplement can de-anonymize the whole submission — sweep the
appendix with the same rigor as the body (sensys-submission).
If you are resubmitting at the next deadline, the Response to Reviewers is a separate document
(sensys-author-response), not appended to the paper's body — it must not consume page budget and
must follow the CFP's stated form (待核实 for the exact mechanism). The revised paper stands on its
own; the response explains how it changed.
An unlimited appendix that no one can navigate is wasted. Give it the same structure your body promises: if §4.2 says "full protocol in App. B," App. B exists, is labeled, and contains exactly that. Cross-reference precisely — a reviewer checking one number should reach it in one hop.
[Body] is every body paragraph load-bearing? list what should move to appendix
[Appendix] is anything load-bearing hiding in the (optional-to-read) appendix?
[Blind] artifact/data links swept for anonymity — pass/gap
[Resub] response-to-reviewers kept out of the body? (if applicable)
[Nav] body cross-references resolve to labeled appendix sections? pass/gap
[Open] the one placement decision most affecting how the paper reads