ectheory-rebuttal — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited ectheory-rebuttal (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
At a theorem-proof journal the referees are checking your mathematics, not your causal story. The handling editor's letter sets priorities; under the editorial leadership from 1 January 2026 (Guggenberger, Su, Sun), expect demanding technical review. Because review is single-anonymous, the referees already know who you are — keep responses on the merits.
binding; address it fully this round.
incorrect limit claim — requires new math), clarification (rewrite/explain the assumption or step), or disagreement (you will push back, with a precise counter-argument or counterexample).
ectheory-identification-strategy for assumptions/proofs, ectheory-data-analysis for simulations), update exhibits, then write the letter.
Supplementary Material (already-reviewed, separate labeled file) so the Article stays under 50 pages — but the new derivations must now have been reviewed before final posting.
(weakened assumption, filled step, added lemma, new simulation) + the exact location (theorem/ lemma/section/page) in the revised paper.
differ — ideally a counterexample, a citation, or a corrected derivation — not rhetoric.
At a theorem-proof journal the report is a proof check, so each objection maps to a concrete mathematical remedy, not a rhetorical reply.
| Referee objection | Class | The ET fix this round |
|---|---|---|
| "Conditions too strong / not primitive" | fundamental | primitive moment+dependence pair; show high-level version follows |
| "Rate stated, no distribution theory" | fundamental | add the limiting law (mode, normalizer, functional) with the argument |
| "Hard step (uniformity) sketched" | fundamental | isolate as a named lemma with full proof; overflow to Supplement |
| "Result is a special case of [X]" | disagreement | counter with the dimension you relax, or concede and reframe |
Promising to "address in future work" a gap the referee identified is the classic way to turn a revise-and-resubmit into a reject — close it with real math this round.
A referee objects that the proof assumes finite eighth moments where finite fourth should suffice. The fix: re-derive the variance bound via a maximal inequality needing only fourth moments, add the weakened condition as the new Assumption, and verify it in the DGP. The entry reads: "We have weakened Assumption 2 to finite fourth moments (p. 7), re-proving the key bound via a maximal inequality (new Lemma 3, Supplement S.2)." What changed, the new lemma, the exact location — that is what the editor scans for. Settle disagreements with a counterexample, a corrected derivation, or a citation, never assertion; keep every response anchored to a theorem, lemma, section, or page.
【Decision】R&R / major / conditional
【Editor's binding points】[...]
【Classification】fundamental: [...] / clarification: [...] / disagreement: [...]
【Math routed to】ectheory-identification-strategy / ectheory-data-analysis (as needed)
【Letter】point-by-point with exact locations? [Y/N]
【Supplement used】overflow derivations moved, Article <=50pp? [Y/N]
【Next step】resubmit the single PDF via ScholarOne (ectheory-submission for file checks)~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.