name: ase-supplementary description: Use when deciding what belongs in the 10-page ASE (IEEE/ACM Automated Software Engineering) paper body versus the artifact and supplementary material, splitting content by decision-criticality so nothing that decides acceptance lives outside the reviewed pages under the 10+2 budget.

ASE Supplementary

Split content by decision-criticality. ASE gives you 10 pages of body (plus 2 for references), and reviewers judge the paper on those pages. The artifact and any supplementary material support reproduction and reuse — they do not carry the argument. The failure mode is exiling a decision-critical result to the artifact and assuming reviewers will dig for it; they judge what is in the body.

The decision-criticality rule

• In the body (must be within 10 pages): anything a reviewer needs to accept the paper — the automated task, the technique, the headline results on real subjects, the closest baseline comparison, the key ablation, and the central threats argument.
• In the artifact / supplement: everything needed to reproduce or reuse — full configurations, complete result tables, extra subjects, proofs, additional plots, raw logs, and cached model outputs.

If a result decides acceptance, it lives in the body even if space is tight; cut elsewhere.

What each container is for

| Content | Where | Why | |---|---|---| | Task, technique, headline evaluation, closest-baseline comparison, key ablation | Body (≤10 pp) | Decision-critical; reviewers score these | | Central threats-to-validity argument | Body | Construct/oracle validity is judged, not reproduced | | Data Availability Statement | Body, after Conclusions, inside 10 pp | Mandatory and reviewed | | Full config files, seeds, environment | Artifact | Reproduction detail, not an argument | | Complete/extra result tables, extra subjects | Artifact / supplement | Support, not headline | | Proofs, derivations too long for the body | Artifact / supplement (if the venue permits) | Verification detail | | Raw logs, cached LLM outputs, dataset snapshots | Artifact | Provenance and reuse |

The reviewer-behavior reality

• Reviewers may open the artifact to check a claim, but they will not reconstruct a headline result from raw logs. State every acceptance-deciding number in the body with a pointer to where the artifact backs it.
• A pointer to the artifact is a promise the body's claim is verifiable — not a substitute for stating the claim.
• Keep the body self-contained: a reader who never opens the artifact should still be able to judge the contribution.

Anonymity across containers

• The supplement and artifact are part of the double-anonymous submission: scrub tool names that encode your identity, repository owners, and file paths.
• A result table in the artifact that reveals your institution's cluster paths is as much a leak as a name on the PDF.

Space-recovery moves (before cutting content)

[Figures]  merge redundant plots; one figure that carries the argument beats three that decorate.
[Tables]   move exhaustive per-subject tables to the artifact; keep the summary with effect sizes.
[Prose]    delete literature-tour sentences; related work is a delta argument, not a survey.
[Config]   move full configurations to the artifact; keep the one setting that matters in the body.
[Roadmap]  cut over-signposting; the arc should be visible without a paragraph announcing it.

Output format

[Decision-critical in body?] task / technique / headline results / baseline / key ablation / threats — all present within 10pp?
[Data Availability] in body, after Conclusions, inside 10pp?
[Artifact-only] configs / extra tables / proofs / logs / cached outputs -> not decision-critical?
[Self-contained] judgeable without opening the artifact? yes/no
[Anonymity] supplement + artifact scrubbed of identity? yes/no