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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.