# Editorial Decision Template

This template is used by `editorial_synthesizer_agent` to produce the final Editorial Decision Package.

---

## Template

```markdown
# Editorial Decision

## Manuscript Information
- **Title**: [Paper title]
- **Manuscript ID**: [If available]
- **Submission Date**: [Submission date]
- **Decision Date**: [Decision date]
- **Review Round**: [Round N]

## Review Panel Provenance (#540)

[`reviewer_full` letters only — other modes describe their own panel composition and omit this block. Exactly one of:
- "Reviewer 2 ran on [cross-model family] via the cross-model reviewer track; the remaining reviewers ran on [primary family]. Cross-family splits are visible in the panel matrix (no aggregate is computed)." /
- "All five reviewer personas ran on a single model family ([family]). Persona diversity is not model diversity — blind spots may be correlated across reviewers (Ren et al. 2026, arXiv:2607.13104 §5.2)." /
- "Cross-model dispatch for Reviewer 2 failed ([reason]); the slot fell back to [primary family]. Single-family caveat applies."]

---

## Decision *

### [Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject]

[If Reject, indicate subtype: Out of Scope / Fundamental Flaw / Insufficient Contribution / Premature / Resubmit Encouraged]

---

## Reviewer Summary

| Reviewer | Role | Recommendation | Confidence |
|----------|------|---------------|------------|
| EIC | [Journal editor identity] | [Accept/Minor/Major/Reject] | [1-5] |
| Reviewer 1 | [Methodology expert identity] | [Accept/Minor/Major/Reject] | [1-5] |
| Reviewer 2 | [Domain expert identity] | [Accept/Minor/Major/Reject] | [1-5] |
| Reviewer 3 | [Cross-disciplinary expert identity] | [Accept/Minor/Major/Reject] | [1-5] |

---

## Consensus Analysis *

### Points of Agreement (Consensus)

**[CONSENSUS-4]** (All reviewers agree):
1. [Consensus content — cite relevant passages from each reviewer's report]
2. [...]

**[CONSENSUS-3]** (3/4 reviewers agree, the 4th **silent**):
1. [Consensus content — indicate which 3 agree and name the silent 4th. If the 4th *disputes* the sub-claim rather than being silent, it is a SPLIT (see Points of Disagreement), not a CONSENSUS-3.]
2. [...]

### Points of Disagreement

**Disagreement 1: [Issue name]**
- **R[X] view**: [Specific viewpoint, citing report]
- **R[Y] view**: [Specific viewpoint, citing report]
- **Disagreement type**: [Perspective difference / Severity disagreement / Existence disagreement / Direction disagreement]
- **Editor's Resolution**: [Arbitration result]
- **Resolution Rationale**: [Arbitration rationale — based on evidence/expertise/conservative principle]

**Disagreement 2: [Issue name]**
- [Same format as above]

---

## Decision Rationale *

[200-300 words explaining the basis for this decision]

Requirements:
- Cite specific reviewer opinions
- Explain how disagreements were resolved
- Explain why this decision was chosen rather than a more or less strict one
- If Reject, explain why revision also cannot salvage it

---

## Required Revisions * (Must Fix)

[Only needed for Minor Revision and Major Revision]

| # | Revision Item | Sub-Claim(s) | Source Reviewer | Severity | Section | Estimated Effort |
|---|--------------|--------------|----------------|----------|---------|-----------------|
| R1 | [Description] | [SC-n] | [EIC/R1/R2/R3] | Critical | [Section name] | [X days] |
| R2 | [Description] | [SC-n] | [Source] | Critical/Major | [Section name] | [X days] |
| R3 | [Description] | [SC-n] | [Source] | Major | [Section name] | [X days] |
...

The `Sub-Claim(s)` column carries the Step 1b `sub_claim_id`(s) the item traces to (e.g. `SC-1`); a DA-CRITICAL or non-decomposed item uses `—`.

### Required Item Details

**R1: [Title]**
- **Problem**: [Specific description]
- **Source**: [Which reviewer raised it, citing report passage]
- **Requirement**: [Specifically how to fix it]
- **Acceptance criteria**: [How to confirm the issue is resolved after fixing]

**R2: [Title]**
- [Same format as above]

---

## Suggested Revisions (Should Fix)

| # | Revision Item | Sub-Claim(s) | Source Reviewer | Priority | Section | Expected Improvement |
|---|--------------|--------------|----------------|----------|---------|---------------------|
| S1 | [Description] | [SC-n] | [Source] | P2 | [Section name] | [What it improves] |
| S2 | [Description] | [SC-n] | [Source] | P2/P3 | [Section name] | [What it improves] |
...

---

## Revision Roadmap *

### Priority 1 — Structural Revisions (Estimated total effort: X days)
- [ ] R1: [Task description — linked to Required Revisions above]
- [ ] R2: [Task description]
- [ ] R3: [Task description]

### Priority 2 — Content Supplementation (Estimated total effort: X days)
- [ ] S1: [Task description]
- [ ] S2: [Task description]

### Priority 3 — Text and Formatting (Estimated total effort: X days)
- [ ] [Merged Minor Issues from all reviewers]
- [ ] [Language polishing items]
- [ ] [Citation format corrections]

### Total Estimated Effort
- **Minor Revision**: [X-Y days]
- **Major Revision**: [X-Y weeks]

---

## Revision Deadline

- **Recommended deadline**: [Date]
- **Basis**: [Minor: 2-4 weeks / Major: 6-8 weeks]
- **Extension policy**: [If extension is needed, notify 1 week before the deadline]

---

## Response Letter Instructions

Please use the format in `templates/revision_response_template.md` to respond to every reviewer comment item by item.

**Must include**:
1. Response and revision description for each Required Revision
2. Response for each Suggested Revision (adopted or reason for not adopting)
3. Change markup (mark all changes in the revised manuscript with color or track changes)
4. Cross-reference table of new page numbers/paragraphs

---

## Closing

[Formal closing, adjusting tone based on decision type]

### Accept Version
We are pleased to accept your manuscript for publication in [Journal Name]. [If applicable, include minor suggestions]

### Minor Revision Version
We invite you to submit a revised version of your manuscript, addressing the points raised by the reviewers. We look forward to receiving your revision within [deadline].

### Major Revision Version
We encourage you to carefully consider the reviewers' comments and submit a substantially revised manuscript. Please note that the revised manuscript will undergo another round of review.

### Reject Version
After careful consideration, we are unable to accept your manuscript for publication in [Journal Name]. We appreciate the effort you have put into this work and hope the reviewers' comments will be helpful for future development of this research.

[If appropriate, recommend alternative journals]

---

## Appendix: Full Reviewer Reports

[Attach all 4 complete reviewer reports for the author's reference]
```

---

## Format Guidelines

### Revision Roadmap Design Principles

1. **Actionability**: Every item is a concrete task, not an abstract suggestion
2. **Traceability**: Every item can be traced back to specific reviewer comments
3. **Prioritization**: Priority 1 > 2 > 3; authors can process in order
4. **Time estimation**: Helps authors plan their revision timeline
5. **Compatibility**: Format can be directly used as `academic-paper` revision mode input

### Severity-to-Priority Mapping

| Severity | Priority | Revision Type |
|----------|----------|--------------|
| Critical | P1 | Required Revision |
| Major | P1/P2 | Required / Strongly Suggested |
| Minor | P2/P3 | Suggested |
| Cosmetic | P3 | Optional |
