--- name: nsdi-supplementary description: Use when splitting NSDI material across the 12-page body, the appendix pages the CFP allows beyond references, HotCRP auxiliary-material uploads for critical online content, and the one-shot-revision packet — deciding what reviewers must see in-body versus what merely supports it. --- # NSDI Supplementary Material NSDI gives authors four containers with different review status. Misfiling content — a load-bearing baseline in an appendix, revision evidence missing from the auxiliary packet — costs more than any phrasing error. Rules below are the NSDI '27 CFP as rendered on 2026-07-08. ## The four containers | Container | '27 rule | Review status | |---|---|---| | Body | 12 pages incl. footnotes, figures, tables | The paper; judged in full | | References | extra pages, no stated cap | Checked, uncounted | | Appendices | extra pages after references permitted | Available context; assume optional reading (obligation 待核实) | | Auxiliary material (HotCRP form) | for online content critical to the paper; alternative is contacting the co-chairs | Consulted at reviewer discretion; mandatory vehicle for revision packets | Two contrasts worth internalizing. Against sibling venues that ban submission-time appendices outright, NSDI *permits* them — the trap here is overuse, not existence. And the auxiliary-material slot is not a junk drawer: the CFP frames it for content **critical** to the paper that lives online, plus the structured revision documents below. ## The placement rule Ask of every artifact of content: *would a reviewer who skipped this be unable to judge a claim?* - **Yes → body.** Key workload description, baseline identity and tuning, the mechanism a headline number depends on, the failure regimes. If it does not fit, the paper is over-claiming for its budget — cut claims, not their evidence (`nsdi-writing-style`). - **Supports but does not carry → appendix.** Full parameter tables, additional workload results consistent with in-body trends, protocol message formats, extended proofs of secondary properties. - **Lives online and matters → auxiliary material,** anonymized. A demo, a dataset sample, an interactive visualization. Never a raw GitHub link in the text — repo URLs identify authors (`nsdi-submission`). Self-containment is a hard constraint in both directions: the 12 pages must stand alone if every appendix page is ignored, and no appendix may quietly introduce a new claim the body never made. ## Appendix design, when used - Order appendices by likely reviewer interest; a skeptical reviewer goes to the appendix to check one specific thing, not to read linearly. - Give each appendix a one-line pointer from the body ("full per-workload results: App. B") so their existence is discoverable inside the reviewed pages. - Regenerate appendix tables from the same run ledger as body figures (`nsdi-reproducibility`); internal contradictions between body and appendix are a reviewer's fastest route to distrust. - Anonymize appendices to the same standard as the body — leaks hide in config listings, hostnames, and dataset paths. ## The one-shot revision packet NSDI's most distinctive supplementary requirement. A resubmitted one-shot revision **must** include auxiliary material containing: 1. a version of the paper **highlighting all changes made**, and 2. a **high-level explanation of the major changes**. Build both as living documents during the revision, not as a deadline-night diff: ```bash # Maintain the highlighted version continuously with latexdiff latexdiff submitted/main.tex revised/main.tex > diff/main-diff.tex pdflatex -output-directory diff diff/main-diff.tex # Change memo skeleton: one block per required issue # R2.3 (baseline tuning): re-ran §6.2 with vendor-recommended config; # deltas now 2.1-2.9x (was 2.1-3.4x); text + Fig 7 updated. [diff pp. 8-9] ``` The same reviewers re-read the packet against their issue list; a memo that maps issue → change → diff location does their verification for them. A revision whose packet obscures what changed — or that ignores a required issue — is rejected with no further revision option (`nsdi-author-response`). ## Triage drill for an overfull draft When the draft runs to 13.5 pages, resist moving the overflow wholesale to an appendix — demote by evidence role: 1. List every figure/table with the claim it supports; anything supporting no in-body claim leaves the paper entirely. 2. Secondary workloads whose trend matches the primary: one summarizing sentence in the body + full table in the appendix. 3. Mechanism details needed to *reimplement* but not to *judge* (message formats, tuning constants): appendix. 4. Anything a skeptical reviewer needs to *believe* a number: stays in-body, and a claim gets cut instead if space still lacks. ## Pre-upload sweep - [ ] Body stands alone with all appendices deleted. - [ ] No load-bearing evidence outside the 12 pages. - [ ] Every appendix pointed to from the body; no orphan claims. - [ ] Auxiliary uploads anonymized (metadata, paths, owners) and actually critical. - [ ] Revision packets: highlighted PDF + change memo present, issue-complete. - [ ] Combined upload sizes within whatever HotCRP enforces this cycle (check the form; caps 待核实). ## Cross-container consistency The containers are read at different times by different people — reviewers now, revision reviewers months later, artifact evaluators after acceptance — so consistency is a supply-chain property: numbers quoted in the body match the appendix tables they summarize; the auxiliary demo shows the same system version the paper measures; and the revision packet's diff derives from the exact PDF the reviewers previously read, not an intermediate draft. ## Output format ```text [Placement audit] item -> body / references / appendix / auxiliary (+ moves needed) [Self-containment] body survives appendix deletion? orphan claims? [Appendix hygiene] pointers present / regenerated from ledger / anonymized [Revision packet] highlighted PDF ok? memo maps all required issues? [Blocking issues] ```