At IROS the "supplement" is essentially one short video, not an appendix. There is no supplementary PDF, so the video is the only extra channel — and IROS caps it tighter than its siblings. Treat it as a piece of evidence a reviewer watches before reading, not as a highlight reel.
| Seconds | Content | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| 0-8 | Title card: task, platform, "representative trials"; no author/lab identity | Orient without leaking identity |
| 8-35 | One or two uncut successful trials at honest speed | Show the system actually runs |
| 35-50 | One labeled failure with its cause on screen | Prove honesty; preempt skepticism |
| 50-60 | A condition sweep or second environment, if it fits | Show it is not one lucky setting |
Because there is no appendix, decision-critical material cannot live "in the supplement." The metric definition, the trial protocol, and the key ablation must be in the paper body. Use the video to show behavior, not to carry an argument the body omits — a reviewer who mutes the video should still be able to evaluate the contribution.
Pre-upload video check:
duration <= 60 s ? size <= 10 MB ? format mp4/mpg/mpeg ?
uncut real trial shown ? >=1 labeled failure ? speed captioned ?
no lab identity in frames, audio, filename, or metadata ?
plays on a machine without lab codecs ?
[Video status] Ready / Needs fixes / Not ready
[Envelope] <s>s / <MB>MB / format / deadline ok?
[Evidence quality] uncut trials? failure shown? speed honest?
[Anonymity] frames/audio/metadata/filename checked?
[Body dependency] what argument must move from video into the paper body?