Every exhibit should answer: which theorem, proposition, algorithm, or modelling insight does this support?
For a paper with layered results, a compact dependency table orients referees faster than prose:
Assumptions: (A1) filtered space, usual conditions (A2) NFLVR (A3) bounded volatility
Lemma 3.1 <- (A1),(A2) uniform integrability of the deflated wealth process
Lemma 3.2 <- (A1),(A3) gradient bound for the value function
Theorem 4.1 <- L3.1, L3.2 duality and existence of the optimizer
Theorem 4.2 <- Thm 4.1,(A3) regularity of the free boundary
Place it at the end of the introduction or the head of the proofs section; it doubles as your own audit that no result silently uses an unlisted assumption.
Pseudocode earns its place only when the paper proves something about the algorithm (convergence, complexity, stability). Pair each algorithm float with the statement number of that guarantee, keep inputs and outputs in the manuscript's notation, and state the stopping criterion explicitly — referees check that the displayed loop matches the object analyzed in the proof, not a simplified cousin of it.
A draft caption for an American-put exhibit reads "Exercise boundary for different volatilities." Journal-ready version: "Free boundary b(t) of the American put under Assumptions (A1)–(A3), computed with the penalized PDE scheme of Section 5 (grid 400×400, tolerance 1e-8), illustrating the monotonicity proved in Theorem 4.2; sigma in {0.2, 0.3, 0.4}, r = 0.02, K = 100. The figure illustrates the theorem's qualitative content and makes no calibration claim." Every clause does one caption-contract job: result, financial object, settings, interpretation limit.
Each caption should state four things: the formal result illustrated, the financial object, the numerical settings, and the interpretation limit. For example, a pricing-sensitivity figure should not claim broad empirical validation; it should say which theorem or model implication the curve helps readers understand.
If the exhibit cannot name a theorem, proposition, or modelling implication, cut it or move it to an exploratory appendix. Mathematical Finance exhibits are evidence for theory comprehension, not substitutes for proof.
[Exhibit] figure / table / algorithm / appendix
[Formal result supported] theorem/proposition/lemma
[Numerical details needed] ...
[Caption claim] ...
[Next step] mathfin-writing-style