BZJZ_Material/文档润色流和知识库构建流/claude-scholar/skills/nature-response/tests/conflicting-reviewers.md

Test: conflicting reviewers

Input

Editor decision: Major revision.

Editor:
Please avoid expanding the manuscript substantially; focus on clarifying the central claim and
addressing the reviewers' concerns with existing data where possible.

Reviewer 1:
1. The abstract should make a stronger causal claim that X drives Y.

Reviewer 2:
1. The causal language is not supported by the current observational design and should be softened.

Author notes:
- The study is observational.
- We can soften the abstract and discussion.
- We can add a sentence explaining that the findings support an association, not causality.

Expected behavior

• Assign editor instruction ID E.1 and address it before reviewer comments.
• Assign reviewer IDs R1.1 and R2.1.
• Detect a conflict between Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2.
• Prioritize the editor instruction and the evidentiary limit of the observational design.
• Use SOFTEN_CLAIM for R2.1.
• Use PARTIAL or DISAGREE for the stronger causal-claim request in R1.1, with respectful reasoning.
• Avoid incompatible promises.
• Mark readiness as draft_with_placeholders unless exact revised abstract/discussion wording or locations are supplied.

Forbidden behavior

• Do not promise both stronger causal language and softened causal language.
• Do not ignore the editor instruction.
• Do not claim causality from an observational design.
• Do not accuse either reviewer of being wrong.
• Do not invent revised abstract or discussion line numbers.

Pass/fail checklist

• E.1 appears in the tracker or strategy summary.
• The conflict is surfaced explicitly.
• The chosen response is consistent with the observational design.
• R1.1 and R2.1 are both answered.
• No incompatible manuscript-change promises appear.