---

name: ccs-supplementary description: Use when preparing ACM CCS appendices and supplementary material, including the ethics considerations appendix, protocol transcripts, formal proofs, measurement tables, and anonymized supporting material under the 12-page body limit, anonymity, and reviewer-discretion constraints for a security paper.

CCS Supplementary

Use this when assembling CCS appendices and supplementary material. At CCS the main 12-page body must let reviewers judge novelty and soundness on its own; appendices support it but the committee is not obligated to read them.

Supplement structure

• Put formal proofs, full protocol transcripts, extra measurements, and additional evaluation tables in well-marked appendices after the bibliography.
• Place the ethics considerations content where the CFP directs it. CCS 2026 required a dedicated ethics section as an appendix after the 12-page body and the bibliography for work touching human subjects, user data, or real-world vulnerabilities.
• Keep every supplementary file double-blind: no authors, institutions, acknowledgements, private paths, repository owners, or identifying metadata, including in code and datasets.
• Do not hide the core threat model, the main attack description, the headline defense, or the primary evidence in an appendix; a paper whose contribution is only legible with the appendix reads as unreviewable within the page limit.
• Verify archives open on a clean machine and carry no credentials, cache directories, or OS metadata that leaks identity.

Appendix architecture for a security paper

• Order appendix sections to mirror the body: threat model details, then proofs, then extended attack variants, then measurement tables, then the ethics section where required.
• Restate each theorem or protocol step before its full derivation so the appendix reads standalone without flipping back to the two-column body.
• Cross-reference every appendix table and proof from the body at least once; orphaned material is invisible under reviewer discretion.
• Keep the ethics section self-contained: disclosure timeline, harm-minimization steps, IRB or ERB status, and the reasoning, so the ethics reviewer can grade it without hunting.

What gets opened first

Supplement item	Inspection likelihood	Practical implication
Ethics considerations section	High for sensitive work	Write it to stand alone and answer the obvious concern
Proof of the headline security guarantee	High for crypto/formal papers	Polish it to main-text standard
Extended attack variants and measurements	Medium	Reference each one from the body
Code and data archive	Variable, reviewer discretion	The README must orient a reader in one minute

Vignette: splitting a protocol-security paper

A submission proving a key-exchange protocol secure, plus an implementation and overhead plots: the body keeps the threat model, the protocol, the main security theorem with a sketch, and the overhead figure; the appendix holds the full proof, the message-level transcript, and the ethics note on the disclosed implementation bug; the archive carries the reference implementation and test vectors. Nothing decision-critical lives only in the archive, because archive inspection is discretionary.

Output format

[Supplement status] Ready / Needs fixes / Not ready
[Files] <appendix / proofs / ethics section / code / data>
[Ethics section] present / required-and-missing / not-applicable
[Anonymity checks] passed / issues
[Main-paper dependency] <what breaks if the appendix is ignored>