Light Review Rebuttal

Review and rebuttal

Build a source-preserving review registry, issue matrix, revision plan,

evidence/change map, response draft, commitment ledger, unknown/failure record,

and delivery package. Treat prose generation as the last layer, not the first.

Read review-rebuttal-resource-map.md before

a real run. Read

references/workflow_contract.md before

creating or consuming canonical JSON. Read references.md

when selecting review/rule sources. The competitor evidence is

../../docs/competitors/review-rebuttal.md.

Non-negotiable boundaries

• Consume venue-matching's selected handoff and review context. Verify selected

identity, selected_at timezone, selection_basis, user/delegated

authorization, chosen candidate ID, fit/risk row, unmodified rule envelopes,

source evidence path/as-of/source IDs, manuscript profile, and PDF

path/hash/pages/page size/profile/compliance. Never switch venue, reorder

tiers, or turn venue UNKNOWN into a fact.

• Keep reviewer, editor, decision, and meta-review text verbatim in the

canonical registry. Atom labels, root causes, strategies, and generated

prose are interpretation layers; they never replace source text.

• Record fetch time, source URL/type, round, reviewer ID, attachments and

AVAILABLE|UNKNOWN|UNAVAILABLE|STALE. A 401/403/429/5xx, timeout, login,

private invitation or network failure is UNAVAILABLE, not “no review.”

• Never invent an experiment, analysis, citation, change, line number,

reviewer identity, venue rule or result. PLANNED and IN_PROGRESS may not

be phrased as completed. DONE requires a real change locator; completed

experiment/analysis additionally requires verifiable run provenance with a

matching SHA-256, not merely a local path.

Before marking a response package ready, run the atom/action contract gate so

source spans, reconstruction hashes, policy/ethics authorization and

perspective-specific self-review are machine-checked rather than trusted.

• Paper-writing owns manuscript claims and edits. Result-analysis owns

evidence strength. Citation owns new-reference identity and claim support.

Figure owns visual honesty. Typesetting owns PDF rebuild/compliance. This

skill records and routes work; it does not impersonate those producers.

• Stage 13 critical is narrow: only a routable root cause

(novelty|experiment|writing) explicitly marked rejection_driving=true

with a complete decision/meta-review/reviewer evidence envelope may become

critical. Major labels or an overall Reject alone do not make every comment

critical.

• reviewer_classify and reroute produce advice only. Stop after presenting

evidence and alternatives. Run passport add-back-edge only after the user

chooses the root cause/back-edge. Never mutate the passport automatically.

Canonical workflow

1. Verify upstream identity

Require:

• light.selected_venue_handoff.v1;
• light.review_rebuttal_venue_context.v1;
• light.paper_claims.v1;
• light.evidence_strength.v1;
• citation registry when any new citation is proposed;
• the actual delivered PDF and its stage-11 facts.

Run:

python scripts/review_workflow.py \
  --spec review-input.json \
  --outdir review-delivery

If venue identity, rule envelopes, PDF hash, compliance, claims or evidence IDs

do not agree, stop and repair the producer artifact. Do not “normalize” a

conflict away.

The selected handoff must also retain A32's audit fields: timezone-bearing

selected_at that is not in the future, non-empty selection_basis,

decision_authority=user, coherent selected_by/status, delegated

user_authorization when applicable,

unchanged fit_risk, and a readable source_evidence.path whose SHA-256

matches the selected handoff and whose as_of/source_ids cover every sourced

venue rule.

2. Capture reviews and decisions

For user-provided/private material, copy the text into reviews[].raw_text

without correction and record reviews[].raw_sha256 plus a timezone-aware

captured_at; the workflow re-computes the hash and blocks future/naive capture

times. For a public OpenReview forum:

python scripts/fetch_openreview.py \
  --forum <forum-id> \
  --out openreview-capture.json

If the live API is unavailable but a fixed public PeerRead/OpenReview snapshot

is the declared evidence source, capture that exact commit-pinned JSON instead:

python scripts/fetch_openreview.py \
  --peerread-url <raw-fixed-commit-json-url> \
  --out peerread-capture.json

The capture is calibration/source evidence. Do not redistribute restricted

reviews. If capture is unavailable, continue only with material the user

provided and retain the failure record.

3. Atomize without erasing source

Create one atom for each distinct request, claim, question,

misunderstanding, or editorial item. Each atom must contain an exact

contiguous source span copied from raw_text, with start/end offsets, span

text and SHA-256. Also create addressable coverage units and a reconstruction

hash for the reviewer units that require a response.

Assign one root cause such as novelty, experiment, writing,

clarification, citation, ethics, scope, or editorial. Add a separate

interpretation explaining the inferred concern. If a sentence contains two

independent asks, create two atoms pointing to the same or overlapping source

span; do not paraphrase the reviewer into a new source quote.

Run the stricter losslessness/response-action gate before drafting:

python scripts/review_response_contract.py \
  --input templates/review-response-contract.example.json

Replace the template with the real contract. The example is intentionally

non-passing until current venue policy, ethics state and user authorization are

verified. This gate catches missing reviewer units, duplicate atom/action

coverage, fake DONE wording, incomplete evidence kinds, policy-forbidden

reviewer requests, missing reviewer competence/conflict cards, and missing

domain|method|statistics|ethics|cold_reader self-review perspectives.

4. Bind issues to owned evidence and actions

For every atom:

• bind exact paper claim_id values or leave the list empty;
• bind only real result-analysis evidence IDs;
• choose one strategy:

acknowledge_and_fix, rebut_with_evidence, clarify,

downgrade_claim, or request_editor_ruling;

• assign an owner and PLANNED|IN_PROGRESS|DONE|DECLINED|NOT_APPLICABLE;
• add change locator only after paper-writing actually edits the manuscript;
• add run provenance only after an experiment/analysis actually runs; for

DONE experiment/analysis the artifact path must exist and match

run_provenance.sha256;

• route new references through citation and keep them out until CONFIRMED.

Reviewer error is not permission to ignore a comment. Clarify with manuscript

locator and evidence, or request editor ruling when the disagreement is

material.

When a reviewer request itself conflicts with venue policy, ethics approval,

data rights, consent, budget authorization or editor instructions, do not

silently comply. Mark the action as DECLINED or REQUEST_RULING, bind the

policy/ethics evidence, and keep the reviewer wording intact.

5. Budget from the selected venue only

Run:

python scripts/rebuttal_budget.py \
  review-delivery/response-draft.md \
  --context review-rebuttal-context.json

An AVAILABLE current authoritative rule can yield PASS/FAIL. UNKNOWN,

UNAVAILABLE, STALE, or a page-only rule stays non-passing and explicit.

Never apply an ICLR/CVPR/other venue preset to JORS or vice versa.

For every reviewer request for new numbers/experiments, classify it before any

run as reanalysis/minimal/adapted/new-data plus feasibility and intended action:

python scripts/experiment_request_gate.py \
  --input templates/experiment_request.example.json

The template is intentionally UNKNOWN and non-passing until current official

rules and a real user authorization replace its placeholders.

RUN requires a VERIFIED current venue rule with source_type=OFFICIAL, a real

source and ISO check date that allows new results, plus feasible scope, protocol,

budget and user authorization. Tier-D new data/human study/

large sweep needs separate authorization. This gate only permits a run;

DONE still requires run manifest + result artifact hash, and only then may

the response use completed tense.

6. Check commitment truth

Run:

python scripts/check_commitments.py \
  --ledger review-delivery/commitment-ledger.json \
  --issues review-delivery/issue-matrix.json \
  --change-map review-delivery/evidence-change-map.json

Repair every critical finding. A valid locator proves only that a claimed

change is traceable, not that the scientific response is adequate; perform a

human re-review against the actual revised artifact.

7. Gate and pause

Run:

python scripts/reviewer_classify.py \
  --issues review-delivery/issue-matrix.json \
  --out reviewer-findings.json
python ../light-orchestrator/scripts/run_checkpoint.py \
  --file .light/passport.yaml --stage 13 \
  --findings reviewer-findings.json --ts <ISO-8601> --write
python ../light-orchestrator/scripts/reroute.py \
  --findings reviewer-findings.json --stage 13 \
  --passport .light/passport.yaml

If the gate fails, present each evidenced option:

• 13→3 for rejection-driving novelty;
• 13→5 for rejection-driving experiment/design;
• 13→8 for rejection-driving writing/presentation;
• rebut with evidence;
• downgrade the claim or record a limitation;
• request editor ruling.

Stop for the user's choice. Only then run:

python ../light-orchestrator/scripts/passport.py add-back-edge \
  --to <3|5|8> --from 13 --root-cause "<user-approved reason>" \
  --evidence-ptr <issue/evidence locator> --file .light/passport.yaml

Resource ownership

| Resource | Responsibility |

|---|---|

| review-rebuttal-resource-map.md | execution order, source/access layers, cross-skill routing |

| references/workflow_contract.md | schemas, statuses, invariants and artifact semantics |

| references.md | live source policy, OpenReview/JORS caveats, verification guidance |

| templates/* | blank author inputs and human-readable response/re-review shapes |

| scripts/review_workflow.py | canonical validation and package emission |

| scripts/review_response_contract.py | source-span/reconstruction, atom coverage, response-action evidence, policy/ethics, reviewer-card and self-review gate |

| scripts/fetch_openreview.py | live API or fixed public snapshot capture; honest unavailable state and duplicate accounting |

| scripts/reviewer_classify.py | only evidenced rejection-driving stage-13 findings |

| scripts/check_commitments.py | coverage and PLANNED/DONE/provenance gate |

| scripts/rebuttal_budget.py | selected-context budget assessment; no venue presets |

| scripts/experiment_request_gate.py | venue-policy/feasibility/tier/authorization gate; never runs experiments |

Self-check

• [ ] Selected venue/context, user-selection audit fields, source-evidence hash and actual PDF facts agree byte-for-byte.
• [ ] Reviewer/editor/meta-review source text is preserved and every atom points

to an exact source span with offset and hash.

• [ ] Every available review source has timezone-aware captured_at and

raw_sha256; the registry hash matches the exact raw_text.

• [ ] Addressable reviewer units reconstruct to the expected hash; no unit is

omitted or duplicated unless explicitly justified.

• [ ] Every issue has type, root cause, strategy, owner and truthful status.
• [ ] Every response action declares evidence kind; DONE rows have real

locators; completed scientific actions have run provenance path + SHA-256

match; proposed citations are citation-confirmed.

• [ ] Reviewer competence/conflict cards are recorded but never used to dismiss

comments without editor ruling.

• [ ] Domain, method, statistics, ethics and cold-reader self-review all pass or

have unresolved blockers surfaced before package-ready.

• [ ] Current venue response limits are sourced, or remain UNKNOWN.
• [ ] Commitment coverage passes and no planned action is written as done.
• [ ] Every experiment ask has tier/feasibility/action; RUN is venue-verified and user-authorized.
• [ ] Critical findings have explicit rejection-driving evidence.
• [ ] Reroute advice was shown to the user and no passport edge was added before

the user's choice.

Honest capability boundary

Atomization, triage, point-by-point drafting, tone guidance, reviewer priority,

budgeting, change locators, promise tracking and venue adaptation are common in

peer skills; do not claim them as unique. Light's narrower machine contribution

is verified consumption of upstream venue/PDF/claim/evidence/citation

contracts, immutable source versus interpretation layers, strict

PLANNED/DONE/run-provenance checks, and evidence-gated stage-13 routing that

cannot execute without a user decision. Classification and response quality

still require expert judgment.