---

name: sensys-supplementary description: Use when deciding what goes in a SenSys paper's body versus its unlimited references and appendices versus HotCRP fields — keeping the double-column body carrying the argument, moving full protocols, extra plots, and derivations to the appendix, blinding anonymous artifact links, and keeping the Response to Reviewers out of the body.

SenSys Supplementary Material

SenSys gives you an unusual amount of room outside the page cap: references and appendices are unlimited. That freedom is a trap if it becomes a dumping ground. The discipline is to keep the ≤ 12-page (full) or ≤ 6-page (short) body carrying the argument, and to place everything a reviewer might want but does not need to judge the claim in the appendix — reachable, but not in the way of the story.

The placement decision

For each piece of content, ask: must a reviewer read this to believe the headline claim?

Content	Body (in the cap)	Appendix (unlimited)	HotCRP field
The mechanism and its constraint model	Yes	—	—
The headline energy/latency/accuracy results	Yes	—	—
Full measurement protocol (instrument settings, calibration steps)	Summary only	Full detail	—
Extra ablations and secondary plots	The load-bearing ones	The rest	—
Derivations / proofs of a bound	Statement + intuition	Full proof	—
Complete hardware BOM and wiring	—	Yes	—
Deployment logs, per-node uptime tables	Summary	Full tables	—
Title, abstract, topics, conflicts	—	—	Yes (verbatim-match PDF)
Anonymous artifact link	Cited in text (blinded)	—	If the form asks

The body earns its space

Because appendices are free, the body must be ruthless: every paragraph either advances the sensing-pain → mechanism → measured-behavior arc (sensys-writing-style) or moves to the appendix. A body padded with protocol detail reads as unfocused; a body that states results and points to App. B for the protocol reads as confident. Reviewers are not obligated to read appendices, so nothing load-bearing may hide there — if the claim depends on it, summarize it in the body and expand in the appendix.

Blind the artifact links

Supplementary artifact links are the classic anonymity leak. During double-blind review:

[ ] Repo link is an anonymized mirror (no username, no lab/org in the URL).
[ ] Zenodo/OSF deposit has authors anonymized.
[ ] No link resolves to a personal, lab, department, or company domain.
[ ] Trace/data archives carry no author metadata or identifying paths.

A single un-blinded GitHub URL in the supplement can de-anonymize the whole submission — sweep the appendix with the same rigor as the body (sensys-submission).

Keep the resubmission packet out of the body

If you are resubmitting at the next deadline, the Response to Reviewers is a separate document (sensys-author-response), not appended to the paper's body — it must not consume page budget and must follow the CFP's stated form (待核实 for the exact mechanism). The revised paper stands on its own; the response explains how it changed.

Structure the appendix so it is navigable

An unlimited appendix that no one can navigate is wasted. Give it the same structure your body promises: if §4.2 says "full protocol in App. B," App. B exists, is labeled, and contains exactly that. Cross-reference precisely — a reviewer checking one number should reach it in one hop.

Output format

[Body]     is every body paragraph load-bearing? list what should move to appendix
[Appendix] is anything load-bearing hiding in the (optional-to-read) appendix?
[Blind]    artifact/data links swept for anonymity — pass/gap
[Resub]    response-to-reviewers kept out of the body? (if applicable)
[Nav]      body cross-references resolve to labeled appendix sections? pass/gap
[Open]     the one placement decision most affecting how the paper reads