Rebuttal & Revision (ectheory-rebuttal)

When to trigger

• An ET decision letter arrived: revise-and-resubmit, or major/conditional revision
• You have referee reports challenging assumptions, proof steps, or generality
• You are unsure how to prioritize conflicting referee demands
• The revised manuscript exists and you need to draft the response letter

ET reality: theory referees challenge the proof

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.

Triage protocol

1. Decode the editor. The editor's letter ranks the issues. A point the editor underscores is binding; address it fully this round.
2. Classify every comment. Tag each: fundamental (a gap, an unjustified assumption, an 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).
3. Sequence the work. Fix the math first (route fundamentals to ectheory-identification-strategy for assumptions/proofs, ectheory-data-analysis for simulations), update exhibits, then write the letter.
4. Use the Supplement. If closing a gap adds long derivations, move them to the online 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.

Response-letter structure

• Opening: thank the editor and referees; summarize the main changes in a short paragraph.
• Point-by-point: quote each comment, then respond. Each response = what you changed (weakened assumption, filled step, added lemma, new simulation) + the exact location (theorem/ lemma/section/page) in the revised paper.
• Disagreements: state the referee's point fairly, then give a precise mathematical reason you differ — ideally a counterexample, a citation, or a corrected derivation — not rhetoric.
• Tone: gracious, concrete, mathematically specific.

Checklist

• Editor's binding points decoded and answered fully
• Every comment classified (fundamental / clarification / disagreement)
• All fundamental objections resolved with actual math (closed gaps, fixed assumptions), not promises
• Each response cites the exact theorem/lemma/section/page of the change
• Disagreements settled with a counterexample/derivation/citation, not assertion
• New long derivations placed in the Supplement; Article still <=50 pages
• Tone gracious and precise; no new overclaim introduced

Anti-patterns

• Writing the response letter before the manuscript's proofs actually reflect the fixes
• Promising to "address in future work" a gap the referee identified
• Hand-waving a disputed step instead of giving a counterexample or corrected proof
• Defensive tone treating a proof-check as an attack
• Letting a fix push the Article past 50 pages instead of using the Supplement

Mapping referee objections to the venue-specific fix

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.

Worked vignette and the disagreement protocol

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.

Output format

【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)