No new theory and no slides. You hold two reviews of your paper; today you decide what each one is worth, make the changes, and record every decision in the response-to-reviewers table. Everything is due through Teams at the start of L41.
Review #2 was due through Teams **before the start of class**. Start with both reviews of your own paper open beside the draft. ## Triage your reviews Read both reviews through once before you change anything. Then sort every comment: 1. **Errors** — a wrong number, a misapplied model, a claim the analysis does not support, a citation that does not support its claim, a block with no lesson cited. Fix these first; the citation-check findings go at the top of the list. 2. **Gaps against the rubric** — a task, figure or result the rubric asks for that the draft lacks or only half-reports. 3. **Clarity, figures and form** — a paragraph a reviewer misread, an axis without units, a caption that does not say what to see, a page count over five. 4. **Comments you disagree with** — decide on the evidence, not on the tone. A reviewer who misread your method is telling you the method section can be misread. Where both reviewers flag the same thing, start there. Spend the period on categories 1 and 2 before you polish. ## Write the response table Open `ResponseToReviewers.tex` from the template and give **every comment from both reviews its own row**, in the order the comments appear on the forms: - **Reviewer** — R1 or R2. - **Comment** — quote or paraphrase it, with where it pointed. - **What I changed (or why not)** — the change you made; or, if you made none, the reason and your evidence. - **Where** — the section, figure, table or page in the *final* paper, so a grader can find the change. A good "changed" row is specific enough to check: *which* figure, *what* was added. A good "not changed" row gives a reason a reader can weigh — a check you ran, a source that supports your choice, a scope limit you now state in Section VI. "Disagree" on its own is not a response. The table is worth 5 points; the words are yours, and AI may typeset the table but not write it. ## Final checklist for L41 Due **through Teams at the start of L41**: - **The paper (PDF)** in the IEEE template: 4–5 pages, excluding the References and any appendix; all seven sections; every figure cited in the text, with axis units and a caption that says what to see; at least one course lesson from each block, each cited for the claim it supports; any external source vetted in one line in Appendix A. - **The response-to-reviewers table (PDF)**: one row for every comment from both reviews. - **Your code**: every script used for the analysis and the figures, runnable from the issued bundle — `FPToolkit.m`, the four CSV files, the starter and your scripts in one folder. Test it: copy that folder somewhere new, run it, and check the figures and numbers match the paper. - **AI transcripts**, if you used AI in any way: a copy of, or a link to, every chat, submitted with the code. HW4 is also due at the start of L41, and Quiz 4 is taken in class. ## Late policy Late deliverables require coordination with the instructor at least 24 hours before the deadline; non-coordinated late submissions receive a zero. ## Materials FinalProject_IEEE_Template.zip — includes ResponseToReviewers.tex Final Project handout (PDF) — the rubric, the deliverables and the rules Final Project - Peer Review Form.pdf — the form your reviewers used The scenario files and the starter are on the [Final Project page](FinalProject.md). Next lesson: **L41 — Course Wrap-Up.**