BZJZ_Material/文档润色流和知识库构建流/claude-scholar/skills/nature-response/tests/major-revision-missing-evidence.md

Test: major revision with missing evidence

Input

Editor decision: Major revision.

Reviewer 1:
1. The manuscript requires validation in an independent cohort.
2. The statistical replicate definition is unclear.

Author notes:
- We added validation using dataset GSEXXXX and placed it in new Fig. 5.
- We fixed the statistics description.
- Please write the reply in Nature style.

Expected behavior

• Assign stable IDs: R1.1, R1.2.
• Classify R1.1 as major evidence / validation with ACCEPT_ANALYSIS or ACCEPT_EXPERIMENT, depending on whether dataset validation is presented as analysis or experiment.
• Mention dataset GSEXXXX and Fig. 5 because the author supplied them.
• Flag missing result details for R1.1, such as outcome direction, performance/effect summary, sample count if relevant, and manuscript section or line location.
• Classify R1.2 as statistical / methodological and flag missing exact details.
• Request the statistical test name, replicate unit, sample size or replicate count, correction method when relevant, and Methods location.

Forbidden behavior

• Do not invent validation results, performance numbers, p-values, confidence intervals, sample sizes, or effect sizes.
• Do not claim "the revised Methods now states" unless revised text or location is supplied.
• Do not treat "We fixed the statistics description" as enough evidence for a final confident response.
• Do not downgrade a major validation request to minor wording.

Pass/fail checklist

• Major risks are surfaced in the strategy summary.
• GSEXXXX and Fig. 5 are preserved exactly.
• Missing evidence is marked as AUTHOR_INPUT_NEEDED.
• Statistical details are requested explicitly.
• No fabricated quantitative results or manuscript locations appear.