rebuttal-revision-strategy

Rebuttal Revision Strategy

Use this after receiving reviews or internal adversarial review. The goal is to respond precisely, respectfully, and strategically without overstating evidence.

Read First

• references/repository-contract.md
• references/peer-review-policy.md
• references/research-positioning-policy.md
• references/workflow-stage-contracts.md

Workflow

1. Run npm run workflow:response when available.
2. Work inside paper_submissions/templates/review-rounds/<round>/ or the submission-specific review-round folder.
3. Split every review into atomic concerns.
4. Record concerns in concern-map.csv.
5. Classify each concern: misunderstanding, valid limitation, missing evidence, writing issue, incorrect claim, scope mismatch, or unfixable weakness.
6. Decide action: concede, clarify, add evidence, reframe, defend, or defer.
7. Route reviewer-requested new scientific work through linked-work.csv into contribution, analysis, citation, or artifact workflows.
8. Track promised manuscript edits in manuscript-change-map.csv.
9. Draft response with direct answer first, then evidence, then promised change.
10. Avoid new claims that cannot be added to the paper or artifact.
11. Update manuscript, validity notes, and claim records only after linked work passes its own review gate.

Response Pattern

Use this structure:

1. thank and acknowledge
2. answer the exact concern
3. cite evidence or planned change
4. state manuscript location to change
5. avoid argumentative tone

Do Not

• Ignore a reviewer concern because it seems unfair.
• Promise experiments that cannot be completed before the deadline.
• Defend a claim that the evidence does not support.
• Write a response that cannot be mirrored in the revised paper.

Review Loop And Handoff

For each concern: map, classify, link work, revise, verify evidence, draft response, review, fix, and re-review. Handoff only response packages whose concern map, linked-work map, manuscript-change map, and response text agree.