RED rewards a sharp, dynamic/quantitative contribution. Pick the dominant type and lead with it:
State the contribution as a delta against the closest existing model, not as a description of the paper. Make the abstract (≤250 words, stand-alone) carry the headline result and magnitude; the introduction should make the mechanism legible before the math.
Before declaring the framing done, write these four objects:
If the answer to item 2 is only "we use newer data," the paper is probably not framed as a RED
contribution yet. Route to red-literature-positioning or red-identification-strategy.
Suppose a draft solves a two-asset HANK model and finds fiscal transfers raise consumption more when liquid wealth is concentrated near the borrowing constraint. Run the stress test (numbers illustrative):
The abstract leads with item 3 and names item 2; items 1 and 4 belong in the introduction's second and closing paragraphs.
Draft the framing as a fill-in block before touching the abstract:
【Closest model】[author-year + one-line description of the predecessor economy]
【Mechanism delta】[the dynamic force turned on: friction, shock process, heterogeneity margin]
【Quantitative delta】[moment / transition path / welfare number that moves, with magnitude and units]
【Discipline】[which calibrated or estimated targets pin the new force down]
【Scope】[class of economies where the claim holds; the knife-edge case]
【One-sentence pitch】[the sentence an SED discussant would put on slide 1]
If 【Quantitative delta】 is empty, the paper is a theory note — defensible at RED, but the framing must then lead with the mechanism and its analytic characterization instead of a number.
| Pushback heard at RED | Venue-specific fix |
|---|---|
| "The mechanism already exists in [closest paper]" | Show the moment or transition path the predecessor cannot generate, not just a modeling difference |
| "The magnitude is calibration-driven" | Re-run the delta under the predecessor's calibration; separate mechanism from parameter choice |
| "This is a comparative static, not dynamics" | Lead with the transition path or IRF; if a steady-state comparison is the point, argue why adjustment dynamics are second-order |
| "Headline number lacks discipline" | Tie it to explicit targeted moments and show untargeted fit beside it |
../../resources/official-source-map.md — abstract limit and scope sources