Research Respond To Reviewers

3. Draft Responses

For each criticism, draft a response following academic conventions:

**Reviewer [N] Comment [M]**: [Paraphrase the concern]

**Response**: [Our response]

**Action**: [What we changed, with specific section/line references]

Key principles:

• Always thank the reviewer
• Never be defensive
• Cite specific data from canonical JSON when countering a point
• Reference specific paper sections, equations, or tables
• If we made a change, describe it precisely
• If we disagree, provide evidence (not opinion)

4. Update Response File

Write to paper/response_to_reviewers.md:

# Response to Reviewers — QCML Geometric SDE Paper
Date: YYYY-MM-DD

## Summary of Changes
[Bullet list of all changes made in response to reviews]

## Reviewer 1 (Statistician)
[Responses to each comment]

## Reviewer 2 (Physicist)
[Responses to each comment]

## Reviewer 3 (Quant)
[Responses to each comment]

## Reviewer 4 (Hostile)
[Responses to each comment]

5. Cross-Reference

• Load canonical JSON for data-backed responses
• Reference memory/results_registry.yaml for paper claims
• Check if any response requires paper edits (flag separately)

Source Data

• Reviews: paper/review/reviews/
• Canonical JSON: check python -m experiments.registry canonical list
• Paper: paper/qcml_geometric_sde.tex
• Registry: memory/results_registry.yaml