IEEE S&P Camera-Ready

Use this after an Accept decision. S&P's camera-ready is not a formatting pass: acceptance arrives with a draft meta-review listing remaining concerns and a shepherd who strikes each concern only when the revision resolves it (2027 CFP, checked 2026-07-08). The camera-ready is the last reviewed artifact of the cycle.

Working the shepherding loop

1. Convert the draft meta-review into a numbered concern ledger on day one.
2. For each concern, agree internally on: the change, its location, and the one-line evidence the shepherd can check.
3. Ask the shepherd early about any concern you believe is out of scope or wrong — negotiation happens at the start, not at the deadline.
4. Submit the revision with a concern → change → location map; make the strike-through decision mechanical for the shepherd.
5. Nothing in the shepherding loop authorizes new claims: the accepted contribution is the contribution.

The ethics section is added now — and does not count

Accepted papers add a dedicated, well-marked ethics section without it counting against page limits (2026 CFP wording, checked 2026-07-08). Write it as a record, not a disclaimer:

• What could cause harm, to whom, and what you did about it.
• Responsible disclosure: who was notified, when, what they responded, current fix status — with the real names and dates now that anonymity has lifted.
• IRB approval or waiver, by institution and protocol ID, where applicable.
• Data handling: what PII existed, minimization, retention, who had access.

De-anonymization with security-specific restorations

Beyond names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and first-person citations, restore what anonymity forced you to blur:

• Vendor names and CVE identifiers in the disclosure narrative.
• Artifact URLs (repository, DOI deposit) replacing anonymized placeholders.
• Funding and infrastructure acknowledgments (measurement platforms often contractually require attribution).

# Residue sweep after de-anonymization
pdftotext final.pdf - | grep -inE 'anonym|redacted|omitted for (review|anonymity)|Vendor [A-Z]\b'
pdfinfo final.pdf | grep -iE 'title|author'   # metadata now correct, not blank
grep -rn 'REPLACE-AFTER-ACCEPT' . || true

IEEE mechanics

The proceedings are published by IEEE (Xplore); the compsoc template remains mandatory. Verify on the current year's author page — all 待核实 at this pack's check date for 2027: the exact camera-ready deadline, the final page allowance and any purchasable extra pages, the IEEE copyright/eCF step, PDF-compliance checking, and whether registration or in-person presentation by an author is required for publication. Reported by aggregators (unverified officially): recent S&P papers appear open access in the Computer Society Digital Library — do not promise open access until confirmed.

Sequence to the deadline

1. Concern ledger agreed with shepherd (week 1).
2. Content revisions + ethics section drafted (weeks 1–2).
3. De-anonymization and restoration sweep.
4. Artifact evaluation submission if opting in — its schedule runs off the acceptance date, in parallel (ieeesp-artifact-evaluation).
5. Final compsoc compile, IEEE PDF check, copyright form, upload.
6. Re-download and verify the archived PDF; Xplore keeps what you upload.

Common failures at this stage

• Treating the meta-review as advisory — an unresolved concern is a shepherd-level blocker, not a style note.
• An ethics section written as legal boilerplate; reviewers approved a specific record and expect it stated.
• Disclosure narrative updated in the ethics section but not in the introduction, leaving contradictory timelines.
• Missing the artifact-evaluation registration window while polishing prose.

Output format

[Concern ledger] <n> total: resolved <n> · negotiating <n> · open <n>
[Ethics section] disclosure record ✓/✗ · IRB/waiver ✓/✗ · data handling ✓/✗
[De-anon sweep] names/CVEs/URLs restored ✓/✗ · residue found: <items>
[IEEE mechanics 待核实] deadline / page allowance / copyright / attendance
[Artifact track] opted in? deadline <date>; badge targets <list>