backup materials and knowledge-base docs

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

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+# Example: conflicting reviewers
+
+This synthetic example shows how editor instructions and evidence limits control the response when
+reviewers request incompatible claim strength.
+
+## Input
+
+```text
+Editor:
+Please avoid expanding the manuscript substantially and focus on clarifying the central claim.
+
+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 observational design and should be softened.
+
+Author notes:
+- The study is observational.
+- We can soften the abstract and discussion.
+- We can state that the findings support an association, not causality.
+```
+
+## Expected handling
+
+- Assign the editor instruction `E.1`.
+- Assign reviewer comments `R1.1` and `R2.1`.
+- Surface the conflict in the strategy summary.
+- Prioritize the editor instruction and the observational design.
+- Use `SOFTEN_CLAIM` for `R2.1`.
+- Use `PARTIAL` or `DISAGREE` for `R1.1`, with respectful reasoning.
+
+## Response style
+
+```text
+We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion to sharpen the abstract. However, because the study is
+observational, we agree with the editor's instruction to clarify the central claim without
+overstating causality. We have therefore revised the abstract and Discussion to state that the
+findings support an association between X and Y, rather than a causal relationship.
+```
+
+The response must not promise both stronger causal language and softened causal language.