Atc supplementary

ATC Supplementary

ATC gives you four places to put content, each read by a different reviewer under a different rule: the two-page extended abstract (round one, two reviewers), the 12-page body (round two, 3-4 reviewers), the appendix (optional reading), and the artifact (opened during round two and evaluated post-acceptance). Placing content correctly is a strategic decision, not a formatting one, because reviewers are not required to read the appendix and a round-one reviewer may read only the abstract.

The placement rule

Anything that decides acceptance goes in a place the deciding reviewer is required to read.

• Round-one acceptance is decided from the extended abstract → the problem, contribution, headline result, and honest cost must be in the abstract.
• Round-two acceptance is decided from the body → every load-bearing design detail, baseline, and result must be in the 12 pages.
• The appendix holds support a curious reviewer may consult — extra graphs, proofs, parameter tables — never a result the verdict depends on.
• The artifact holds runnable evidence and full data — it strengthens trust and earns badges, but the paper must be judgeable without executing it.

What goes where

Content	Home	Why
Problem, contribution, testbed, headline result, key cost	Extended abstract	The round-one decision surface; must stand alone
Design rationale, implementation, main experiments, fair baselines, tails/variance	Body (≤12 pp)	The round-two decision surface; nothing acceptance-critical may leave it
Extra sensitivity graphs, parameter sweeps, proofs, extended tables	Appendix	Optional depth; reviewers not required to read it
Full code, traces/datasets, configs, claim-to-experiment scripts	Artifact	Runnable evidence + badge material; paper still judged without running it

The extended abstract is not a teaser

The most common ATC mistake is treating the extended abstract as a marketing blurb that depends on the paper. It is a self-contained argument that must survive being read instead of the paper (see atc-writing-style). Move the real problem, the real contribution, and a real result into it; do not defer them to "as shown in the paper."

The appendix is not overflow

The second common mistake is using the appendix to dodge the 12-page limit by exiling results a reviewer must weigh. If a graph is needed to believe a claim, it belongs in the body; if it is merely reassuring, it belongs in the appendix. Ask: would a reviewer who skips this change their score? If yes, it is body content.

Consistency across the four places

• The number in the abstract, the body, the appendix, and the artifact output must match. Divergent numbers across places are a credibility hit and a frequent reviewer catch.
• The claim-to-experiment map (see atc-experiments, atc-reproducibility) should let a reviewer trace each body claim to an artifact script and each artifact output back to a body figure.
• Keep all four double-blind: an appendix or artifact often leaks identity (hostnames, owner strings, system names) even when the body is clean.

Decision procedure

[For each result] which round decides it? -> place it where that round's reviewer must read
[Abstract test]   can a reviewer accept/reject from the 2 pages alone? if not, move content in
[Body test]       is any acceptance-critical claim only in an appendix/artifact? if yes, move it in
[Appendix test]   would skipping this change a score? if yes, it is body content, not appendix
[Consistency]     do the numbers match across abstract/body/appendix/artifact? anonymity intact?

Output format

[Extended abstract] self-standing, decision-complete for round one? yes/no
[Body] all acceptance-critical content inside 12 pages? leaks to appendix/artifact?
[Appendix] optional-only? nothing score-changing exiled here?
[Artifact] runnable evidence + full data; paper judgeable without it? anonymized?
[Move queue] <content to relocate, with target location and reason>