Workspace · Review path
996102e0
Manuscript review path
Use this route when the analysis is already complete enough to draft a manuscript but you want one compact map from result interpretation → manuscript wording → reviewer reconstruction → post-review amendment → response package → archive verification. The revision-package stage makes that archive verification executable: it scaffolds the response matrix, version-change manifest, post-review evidence layers, software record, and editor-facing evidence map before the final handoff.
Check denominator, endpoint, direction, magnitude, descriptive sensitivity, and unresolved uncertainty.
Write Methods, Results, and limitations so the complete observed pattern remains visible.
Ask whether an outsider can recover the endpoint, valid denominator, failures, amendments, and software identity.
If peer review requests new work, preserve the submitted record and add the revision as dated, separately denominated evidence.
Link each reviewer item to its category, timing, action, evidence, manuscript location, and archived revision record.
Scaffold and validate the revision package, finalize the resubmission handoff, then verify the publication bundle, change manifest, evidence map, fingerprints, revision evidence, response record, and final claim-supporting files.
Use these pages in order
- Interpret an audit result
- Reporting robustness
- Manuscript readiness checklist
- Reviewer reconstruction example
- Reviewer-requested amendments
- Reviewer-requested reanalysis example
- Reviewer response letter guide
- Revision response package example
- Version-change manifest guide
- Revision reproducibility package
- Reproducibility-package worked example
- Resubmission readiness and editor handoff
- Submission-to-accepted-record example
- Reproducible publication workflow
Review-round kit
Classify the request
Separate clarification, correction, sensitivity, analytical, endpoint, and measurement amendments before changing the record.
Preserve the new evidence
Record outcome-inspection timing, the amendment-specific specification space, execution denominator, failures, and software identity.
Write the response
Connect each reviewer item to the exact manuscript and archive changes without converting post-review work into false pre-specification.
Reconstruct the final package
Verify that an outsider can trace the submitted evidence, revision evidence, manuscript change log, and final publication claim.
Final resubmission handoff
Record what changed
Use stable change IDs to distinguish editorial edits, clarifications, corrections, analytical amendments, endpoint changes, and reporting-boundary changes.
Build the reproducibility package
Use the real CLI to scaffold the response matrix, version manifest, amendment layers, software record, and final evidence map, then validate the structural manifest.
Run the final consistency gate
Check that response wording, temporal denominators, revised manuscript locations, archive evidence, software identity, and unresolved limitations agree.
Trace the accepted record
Practise the complete synthetic route from submitted 8/8 evidence through a 4/4 review amendment to the final editor-facing evidence map.
For practice, compare the result-pattern examples, work through the reviewer reconstruction example, then use the reviewer-requested reanalysis example, revision response package example, reproducibility-package worked example, and submission-to-accepted-record example to practise preserving submitted, post-review, and final evidence as separate temporal layers.