Hpca supplementary

HPCA Supplementary

Use this to triage material across the destinations HPCA actually provides. HPCA has no open-ended supplementary upload culture: material lives in one of four places, and putting it in the wrong one either wastes body pages or leaks anonymity.

The four destinations

1. The 11-page body. Only what the argument needs to stand: the characterization, the mechanism, and the headline evidence. Everything a reviewer must read to believe the claim.
2. The appendix (within the submitted PDF's allowance). Extended methodology, additional sensitivity studies, proofs of any modeled bounds — material a reviewer may consult, kept out of the core argument.
3. The anonymized artifact mirror. Code, configs, scripts, and reduced-input runs, with all identity scrubbed and links anonymized, so a reviewer can inspect during the window.
4. The post-acceptance public release. The de-anonymized, badge-ready artifact on the AE HotCRP after acceptance, plus any licensed-workload recipes.

Where does each thing go?

Material	Destination	Note
Mechanism description, headline results	Body	The paper's core
Extra sensitivity sweeps, extended methodology	Appendix	Referenced from the body
Simulator, configs, regen scripts	Anonymized mirror	Fully scrubbed for review
Machine-state logs, raw output	Anonymized mirror / appendix	Provenance for silicon
Licensed-workload recipes + checksums	Post-acceptance release	Cannot ship the suite itself
De-anonymized artifact + README	Post-acceptance release	Badge round on AE HotCRP

Keep anonymity intact across destinations

The most dangerous leaks happen in the material around the paper:

• Scrub author names, institution paths, and repo owners from the mirror; anonymize every artifact URL in the PDF.
• Strip identifying metadata from config files, commit authorship, and notebook fields.
• Keep acknowledgments, funding, and any AI-use disclosure phrased so they do not de-anonymize (the disclosure stays anonymous until camera-ready).
• Never blind the bibliography or drop a reference's authors to save space — that is a reject trigger, not an anonymity fix.

Stage for the window

Between submission and the rebuttal/revision window, keep a staging shelf: extra experiments a reviewer might request, pre-run and ready to fold in. The window is short and combined (respond and revise), so material assembled in advance is the difference between answering an objection and deferring it.

Triage pass

1. Body carries only what the claim needs — move the rest to appendix/mirror
2. Appendix holds referenced extras, not orphan material
3. Mirror is fully anonymized (names, paths, URLs, metadata)
4. Licensed workloads reduced to recipes+checksums for later release
5. Staging shelf holds pre-run likely-requested experiments
6. Bibliography intact: no blinding, all authors listed

Output format

[Body discipline] core-only? (Y/N)
[Mirror anonymity] fully scrubbed? (Y/N)
[Destination errors] <material in the wrong place>
[Window readiness] staging shelf populated? (Y/N)
[Bibliography] intact and author-complete? (Y/N)
[Fixes] <ordered>

Reopen the current CFP and AE page for the submitted-PDF appendix allowance and the release mechanics — both are per-edition.