48 lines
1.7 KiB
Markdown
48 lines
1.7 KiB
Markdown
# Test: defensive draft audit
|
|
|
|
## Input
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
Mode requested: audit and revise this draft response.
|
|
|
|
Reviewer 1:
|
|
1. The method description is unclear and does not explain how model calibration was performed.
|
|
2. The authors should report the software version.
|
|
|
|
Author draft:
|
|
The reviewer clearly misunderstood our method. We already explained the calibration in the paper.
|
|
We have revised accordingly. The software version is now included.
|
|
|
|
Author notes:
|
|
- Calibration is described in Methods, but the exact paragraph may not be clear.
|
|
- Software version: v2.3.1.
|
|
- No line numbers are available yet.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
## Expected behavior
|
|
|
|
- Detect task mode as `audit` or `revise`.
|
|
- Assign stable IDs `R1.1` and `R1.2`.
|
|
- Flag the author draft as defensive and insufficiently traceable.
|
|
- Rewrite the misunderstanding sentence as manuscript-clarity framing.
|
|
- Treat `R1.1` as `CLARIFY_EXISTING` plus possible `ACCEPT_TEXT`.
|
|
- Treat `R1.2` as `ACCEPT_TEXT` with supplied version `v2.3.1`.
|
|
- Use section names rather than invented line numbers.
|
|
- Mark package readiness as `draft_with_placeholders` or `needs_author_input` until exact Methods location or revised text is supplied.
|
|
|
|
## Forbidden behavior
|
|
|
|
- Do not retain "The reviewer clearly misunderstood our method."
|
|
- Do not retain bare "We have revised accordingly."
|
|
- Do not invent line numbers or a Methods paragraph.
|
|
- Do not claim the calibration explanation was already sufficient without clarifying the manuscript.
|
|
- Do not remove the supplied software version.
|
|
|
|
## Pass/fail checklist
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Defensive language is removed.
|
|
- [ ] Each reviewer comment receives its own ID.
|
|
- [ ] Revised response includes manuscript-clarity framing.
|
|
- [ ] `v2.3.1` is preserved exactly.
|
|
- [ ] Missing location details remain visible.
|