---

name: ieeesp-supplementary description: Use when deciding what goes in an IEEE S&P (Oakland) paper's appendix versus the 13-page body, including the 5-page references-and-appendices allowance, the rule that reviewers need not read appendices, marking requirements past page 13, and what must never be relegated out of the reviewed body.

IEEE S&P Supplementary Material

Use this when splitting content between the body and the appendix. S&P's model is stricter than most: there is no separate supplement upload in the verified CFPs — everything is one PDF of at most 13 body pages plus at most 5 pages of references and appendices, 18 total, with all content past page 13 clearly marked as appendix and reviewers explicitly not required to read appendices (sp2027.ieee-security.org/cfpapers.html, checked 2026-07-08).

The rule that decides every split

If the acceptance case needs it, it lives on pages 1–13. The appendix is for material a convinced reviewer might verify, never for material that does the convincing.

Content	Placement	Why
Threat model, all of it	Body	The claim is undefined without it
Adaptive-attack evaluation summary	Body	The defense's acceptance case
End-to-end exploit walkthrough (one target)	Body	Existence proof of the attack
Per-target breakdown across 30 targets	Appendix	Verification depth, not persuasion
Full protocol/proof details	Appendix, with theorem statements in body	Statements are claims; derivations are checks
Ethics considerations	Body (submission); dedicated section added at camera-ready doesn't count against limits	Reviewed substance
Extended related work	Appendix	Positioning core stays in body (ieeesp-related-work)
Measurement instrument details (query lists, scan configs)	Appendix	Reproducibility depth

The 5-page arithmetic

References and appendices share the 5-page allowance. A security paper's bibliography routinely runs 2.5–3 pages in compsoc format, leaving perhaps two pages of real appendix. Consequences:

• Budget references first; the appendix gets the remainder.
• Long tables (per-CVE results, device lists) may need an artifact-repository home instead — but then nothing argumentative may depend on them.
• "Deferred to the extended version" is acceptable for proofs only if the paper states the theorem and its assumptions fully in the body; check the current CFP's stance on citing anonymous tech reports (待核实).

Marking and mechanics

• Everything after page 13 must be clearly labeled as appendix — a running "Appendix" heading structure, not a continuation of numbered sections that silently crosses the boundary.
• Appendix references from the body should be load-bearing pointers ("full derivation in App. B"), and the body sentence must still stand if the pointer is never followed.
• The appendix is inside the anonymous PDF: the same anonymization sweep applies (ieeesp-submission), including figure paths and dataset names that identify a lab.

Split audit — run over the section list:
for each body section:    would a first-round reviewer cut the paper
                          without this? if no → appendix candidate
for each appendix item:   does any *claim* in the body rely on it as
                          evidence? if yes → PROMOTE to body or weaken
                          the claim
page check:               body ≤ 13 · refs+appendix ≤ 5 · total ≤ 18
                          · post-13 content labeled

Interplay with the Revise pathway

A Revise expectations summary often asks for material authors originally appendixed ("bring the adaptive evaluation into the main text"). Cheapest prevention: at first submission, put the summary statistics of every appendix experiment in the body with a pointer down — reviewers who can see the number rarely demand the relocation.

Anti-patterns from this venue's review piles

• The 13th page ends mid-evaluation and the "results continue" in Appendix A — reads as a page-limit dodge and draws the over-length flag.
• Proof-by-appendix: a body theorem whose stated assumptions differ from the appendix proof's actual assumptions.
• An appendix ethics discussion — at S&P ethics is reviewed substance and the registration form asks for it directly.
• Appendix-only artifacts descriptions when the availability statement in the body promises more than the appendix delivers.

Output format

[Page arithmetic] body <n>/13 · refs <n> + appendix <n> ≤ 5 · total <n>/18
[Marking] post-p13 labeled ✓/✗
[Promotion list] <appendix items the acceptance case secretly depends on>
[Demotion list] <body items a first-round reviewer would not miss>
[Anonymity] appendix swept ✓/✗