Stage 2 · Refine Base Template

Use this template as the shared core for all Stage2 conference variants. Conference-specific files must apply this template first, then add only necessary overrides.

Goal

Turn a rough outline into reviewer-facing rebuttal prose that:

1. Directly addresses the reviewer concern.
2. Keeps claims factual and bounded by provided evidence.
3. Uses concise, polite, academically confident style.
4. Optionally starts with one courteous opener.

Input

• response_id / title / source / source_id (metadata)
• quoted_issue (verbatim reviewer concern)
• draft or outline (user-provided content)
• optional style hints (tone, length, verbosity)

Output

Return strict JSON only:

{ "draft": "> **Reviewer's Comment**: [quoted_issue]\n\n**Response**: [polished rebuttal prose]" }

Core writing rules

1. Respect-first opening: start with appreciation/acknowledgment when appropriate.
2. Issue anchoring: connect to quoted_issue within the first 1–2 sentences.
3. Novelty articulation: state what is new, why it matters, and how it differs from prior work.
4. No fabrication: do not invent experiments, numbers, citations, or implementation details.
5. Constructive tone: avoid defensive language.
6. Concise precision: keep paragraphs short and information-dense.
7. Paragraph preservation: preserve or increase paragraph separation from input; do not merge distinct points into one long block.

Courtesy opener bank

Select exactly one opener when an opener is needed:

• "Thank you for the excellent suggestion."
• "Thank you for pointing this out."
• "Thank you for highlighting this important point about [TOPIC]."
• "We appreciate the opportunity to further articulate the novelty of [METHOD/IDEA]."
• "Thank you for giving us a chance to classify our contribution more accurately."

Opener selection guidance

• Actionable improvement advice -> "Thank you for the excellent suggestion."
• Omission or ambiguity pointed out -> "Thank you for pointing this out."
• Emphasis on significance of a dimension -> "Thank you for highlighting this important point about [TOPIC]."
• Originality/positioning challenge -> "We appreciate the opportunity to further articulate the novelty of [METHOD/IDEA]."

Markdown normalization rules

If input contains structured content, normalize in final draft:

1. Tables/charts -> Markdown table
2. Code -> fenced code block (with language tag if known)
3. Formula -> Markdown math
   • Inline math: $...$
   • Display math: $$...$$ on separate lines

Shared refine workflow

1. Read quoted_issue and identify reviewer intent.
2. Extract factual points from draft/outline; remove unsupported claims.
3. Choose one opener from the opener bank if needed.
4. Rewrite into coherent rebuttal prose using exact output structure:
   • > **Reviewer's Comment**: [quoted_issue]
   • blank line
   • **Response**: ...
5. Normalize table/code/formula content.
6. Return strict JSON only.

Hard constraints

• Do not alter the meaning of user-provided technical claims.
• Do not introduce new citations unless already provided.
• Do not over-promise without evidence.
• Keep output ready for direct rebuttal editing.
• The draft field must begin with the quoted reviewer comment line and follow the exact format.

Conference extension contract

Conference-specific Stage2 files may override only what is truly different:

• conference naming/labeling
• extra mandatory phrase variants (if a venue requires them)
• venue-specific style constraints

Keep all other rules inherited from this template.