# QA checklist

Use this checklist before finalizing a response package or when auditing an existing draft.

## Completeness

- Every reviewer comment has a stable ID.
- Every ID has a response or an explicit unresolved flag.
- No reviewer comment is paraphrased in a way that changes meaning.
- Repeated concerns are cross-referenced rather than ignored.
- No major concern is answered only with thanks.
- Editor-specific instructions are addressed before reviewer comments when supplied.

## Traceability

- Every claimed revision has a manuscript location or visible placeholder.
- Every new figure, table, panel, supplement, or citation is named only if supplied.
- Every new experiment or analysis has enough supplied description to be credible.
- Line numbers are not invented; use section names if line numbers are unavailable.
- Reviewer comments and response IDs match throughout tracker, letter, and checklist.

## Factuality

- No invented data.
- No invented p-values, confidence intervals, effect sizes, sample sizes, or replicate counts.
- No invented DOI, citation metadata, accession number, repository record, or figure panel.
- No invented reviewer identity or editor instruction.
- No unsupported claim that an experiment, analysis, or manuscript revision was performed.
- Unsupported claims are softened or flagged.

## Tone

- No accusations of reviewer incompetence, bias, or misunderstanding unless the user is explicitly preparing an appeal and supplies evidence.
- No excessive apologies.
- No repetitive empty thanks.
- Disagreement is evidence-based and narrow.
- Study limitations are acknowledged cleanly.
- Time, money, convenience, or ability is not the primary stated reason for not doing requested work.

## Actionability

- Missing author inputs are concrete.
- High-risk and blocking items appear before the final letter or in a visible risk section.
- The manuscript change checklist tells the author which section, figure, table, supplement, or claim needs attention.
- Partial responses state what was addressed and what remains unresolved.

## Final output gate

Before returning final text, ask:

- Can an editor verify every response against a manuscript change, supplied evidence, or explicit limitation?
- Would the response remain professional if included in a transparent peer review file?
- Are all placeholders visible enough that the author cannot accidentally submit fabricated compliance?
- Is the package readiness honestly labelled as `ready_to_submit`, `draft_with_placeholders`, `needs_author_input`, or `blocked`?
- If any item is `draft_with_placeholders`, `needs_author_input`, or `blocked`, the package must not be labelled `ready_to_submit`.

## Readiness gate

Use these labels consistently:

- `ready_to_submit`: all comments are answered with supplied actions and traceable locations.
- `draft_with_placeholders`: draft text exists, but visible placeholders or missing locations remain.
- `needs_author_input`: the author must provide facts before final response wording is credible.
- `blocked`: a compliance, integrity, central-evidence, or appeal-like issue prevents normal final response drafting.
