Reviewer Response Workflow Using the ECC/SHCC/EGC Atlas

Status

• Workflow layer: 09_ai_workflows.
• Purpose: use the ECC Research Atlas to answer reviewer comments with source-grounded evidence, controlled claims, and clear manuscript revision logic.
• Preferred style for Professor Lee: Original / Suggested or Response / Rationale, written from a top-journal editor perspective, with desk-reject risks identified directly.

Core rule

Reviewer responses must not rely on memory or generic claims. Each technical answer should be grounded in at least one of:

• claim-evidence matrix row;
• source note;
• paper card;
• Atlas concept/material-system node;
• manuscript text supplied by the user.

For numeric claims, use claim-evidence rows or source notes with page/figure/table evidence.

1. Reviewer comment classification

Classify each reviewer comment before drafting a response.

1.1 Comment types

1.2 Desk-reject risk flags

Flag as desk-reject risk if any comment involves:

• novelty not distinguished from existing ECC/EGC literature;
• claiming extreme ductility from flexural data instead of direct tension;
• calling a material Green ECC without showing retained tensile strain-hardening or crack-width control;
• self-healing claims based only on visual crack closure;
• high compressive strength presented as high tensile ductility;
• missing foundational PSH / fiber bridging / flaw design literature;
• no evidence for mechanism claims;
• unclear experimental reproducibility;
• unsupported practical application claims.

2. Find relevant Atlas nodes

Map the reviewer comment to Atlas nodes.

2.1 Node retrieval guide

2.2 Lab positioning priority

If the reviewer asks about the authors' contribution, novelty, prior work by the group, or relationship to global literature, search first:

06_lab_position/our_lab_position_map.md
06_lab_position/alkali_activated_ultra_ductile_position.md
06_lab_position/recycled_selvage_fiber_position.md
06_lab_position/self_healing_position.md
06_lab_position/low_fiber_egc_position.md
06_lab_position/materials_ai_wikirag_position.md

Then retrieve supporting rows from:

07_visualization/by_lee_lab_publications_claim_evidence_matrix.csv

3. Retrieve claim-evidence rows

Use claim-evidence matrices as the primary factual evidence layer.

3.1 Main matrices

07_visualization/foundational_papers_claim_evidence_matrix.csv
07_visualization/extreme_ductility_extension_claim_evidence_matrix.csv
07_visualization/sustainable_ecc_extension_claim_evidence_matrix.csv
07_visualization/by_lee_lab_publications_claim_evidence_matrix.csv

3.2 Retrieval fields

For each useful row, record:

paper_id
year
title
doi
atlas_node / atlas_file
claim
evidence_excerpt_or_summary
page_or_section
figure_table_equation
status / verification_level
source_note
paper_card
key_metric
mechanism_category
material_system

3.3 Selection rule

Prefer evidence rows that are:

1. directly relevant to the reviewer's claim;
2. verified_from_pdf or otherwise clearly marked;
3. numeric and page/figure/table supported when the reviewer asks about data;
4. from foundational papers when the issue is theory;
5. from recent extension papers when the issue is novelty or recent context;
6. from lab publication matrix when the issue is Professor Lee lab positioning.

4. Select supporting papers

After retrieving evidence rows, select a compact paper set.

4.1 Recommended paper set size

• Minor comment: 1–2 sources.
• Major technical comment: 3–5 sources.
• Novelty/literature gap comment: 5–8 sources, but group them by theme.
• Reviewer asks for missing literature: cite the most directly relevant works, not every available paper.

4.2 Paper categories

Use a balanced set:

1 foundational paper or book anchor
+ 1–3 topic-specific extension papers
+ 1 Lee lab paper if positioning is relevant

4.3 Citation caution

Do not cite a paper just because it has a similar keyword. Make sure it supports the specific mechanism or claim.

5. Draft response in Original / Response / Revision format

Professor Lee's preferred style is:

Original
Suggested / Response
Rationale

For reviewer response letters, use:

Comment
Response
Revision made
Rationale

5.1 Full template

### Reviewer Comment [No.]

> [Reviewer comment]

### Classification

- Type:
- Severity: minor / moderate / major / desk-reject risk
- Atlas retrieval targets:

### Original

[Original manuscript sentence/paragraph, if supplied]

### Response

We thank the reviewer for this important comment. [Direct answer.]

[Evidence-grounded explanation with citations or source placeholders.]

### Revision made / Suggested revision

[Revised sentence/paragraph to insert into manuscript.]

### Rationale

[Why this revision addresses the comment, what evidence supports it, and what overclaiming it avoids.]

### Evidence used

- [Matrix row / source note / paper card path]

5.2 Top-journal editor tone

Use a tone that is:

• respectful but direct;
• evidence-based;
• precise about limitations;
• explicit about what was changed;
• cautious with novelty and mechanism claims.

Avoid vague phrases:

This study is novel and significant.

Prefer specific framing:

The novelty lies in using EPS beads as intentional flaw activators to lower the cracking threshold in a low-fiber EGC system, rather than relying only on increased fiber volume. We revised the Introduction to clarify this distinction and added supporting references to flaw-design and PSH criteria.

6. Avoid overclaiming

6.1 General overclaiming rules

Do not claim:

• "first" unless verified by literature search;
• "world-record" unless the source explicitly supports it and the manuscript can defend it;
• "self-healed" when only visual closure was measured;
• "durable" when only short-term mechanical tests were performed;
• "Green ECC" when strain-hardening/crack-width control is not retained;
• "extreme ductility" without direct tensile strain evidence;
• "mechanism proved" if only correlation is shown.

6.2 Safer wording

6.3 Desk-reject risk check

Before finalizing a response, ask:

1. Did we answer the reviewer's exact question?
2. Did we add a real manuscript revision?
3. Did we cite evidence rather than assert authority?
4. Did we distinguish data, interpretation, and speculation?
5. Did we avoid claiming more than the experiment proves?

7. Add citations and page evidence

7.1 Citation workflow

1. Retrieve evidence row.
2. Confirm source note and paper card path.
3. Check page/section/figure/table fields.
4. If original PDF is pending, say the evidence is source-note/full-text based unless already verified.
5. Add the source to the manuscript or response.

7.2 Citation placeholder format

Use this in drafts when final journal citation style is not yet applied:

[Author et al., Year; DOI: xxx; Atlas evidence: <matrix path>, paper_id=<paper_id>]

For internal response drafting:

(Source: `07_visualization/by_lee_lab_publications_claim_evidence_matrix.csv`, paper_id=`...`, page/figure=`...`)

7.3 Page evidence policy

• If page/figure/table is verified, include it in the response evidence note.
• If uncertain, write needs_check and do not present it as verified.
• If reviewer asks for exact data, verify from PDF before finalizing the response.

8. Build revision task list

After drafting responses, create a revision task list.

8.1 Task categories

literature_addition
terminology_revision
method_detail_addition
figure_or_table_update
result_reanalysis
discussion_rewrite
limitation_statement
citation_update
supplementary_material
language_edit

8.2 Revision task table

| Task ID | Reviewer comment | Action | Manuscript section | Evidence source | Priority | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R1-T1 | R1.2 | Add PSH/flaw design explanation | Introduction | `02_concepts/flaw_design.md` | high | pending |

8.3 Priority rules

High priority:

• novelty gap;
• unsupported mechanism;
• missing foundational literature;
• incorrect terminology;
• unverified numerical claim;
• methods reproducibility problem.

Medium priority:

• discussion clarification;
• additional citation;
• figure/table explanation;
• limitation paragraph.

Low priority:

• style, grammar, formatting.

9. Example workflows

9.1 Comment: low-fiber EGC novelty unclear

Retrieval:

06_lab_position/low_fiber_egc_position.md
02_concepts/flaw_design.md
02_concepts/strain_hardening_criteria.md
03_papers/wang_li_2004_tailoring_preexisting_flaws.md
07_visualization/by_lee_lab_publications_claim_evidence_matrix.csv

Response skeleton:

Response: We agree that the original manuscript did not sufficiently distinguish the proposed low-fiber EGC strategy from conventional fiber-volume-based ECC design. We revised the Introduction to clarify that the novelty lies in reducing the strain-hardening threshold through intentional flaw/matrix design, rather than simply increasing PE fiber content.

Revision: [insert revised paragraph]

Rationale: This framing is consistent with the Atlas flaw-design lineage and avoids overclaiming EPS beads as a universal ductility enhancer.

9.2 Comment: Green ECC claim not justified

Retrieval:

04_material_systems/green_ecc.md
02_concepts/sustainability.md
07_visualization/sustainable_ecc_extension_claim_evidence_matrix.csv
06_lab_position/alkali_activated_ultra_ductile_position.md

Desk-reject risk:

High if the manuscript claims greenness only from binder substitution without showing retained strain-hardening or crack-width control.

Response skeleton:

Response: We agree that the term Green ECC should not be used based solely on material substitution. We revised the manuscript to state that the proposed material is considered within the Green ECC framework only because it combines reduced cement/virgin-material demand with retained tensile strain-hardening and controlled crack width.

9.3 Comment: self-healing evidence overinterpreted

Retrieval:

06_lab_position/self_healing_position.md
04_material_systems/self_healing_ecc.md
07_visualization/by_lee_lab_publications_claim_evidence_matrix.csv

Response skeleton:

Response: We agree and have revised the wording from "durability was fully restored" to "the measured permeability indicator was substantially recovered." We also added a limitation noting that water-tightness does not necessarily imply chloride resistance unless chloride transport or corrosion metrics are measured.

10. Final reviewer-response checklist

Before sending the final response letter:

• [ ] Every reviewer comment has a direct response.
• [ ] Every response states what was changed in the manuscript.
• [ ] Technical claims have source paths or claim-evidence rows.
• [ ] Numeric claims have page/figure/table evidence or needs_check is resolved.
• [ ] Overclaims are softened.
• [ ] Desk-reject risk issues are addressed in the manuscript, not only in the response letter.
• [ ] Added citations are relevant and not excessive.
• [ ] A revision task list has been created and completed.

Related workflow files

• 09_ai_workflows/wiki_rag_ingestion_plan.md
• 09_ai_workflows/atlas_query_templates.md
• 09_ai_workflows/original_pdf_matching_protocol.md
• 06_lab_position/our_lab_position_map.md
• 07_visualization/by_lee_lab_publications_claim_evidence_matrix.csv