IEEE Access — Submission Checklist & Critical Path

What stands between now (Sept 1 2026) and hitting “submit.” Target: end of Sept 2026 (one revision cycle before the ~Jan 31 2027 UOC deadline = 10 baremo points). The paper is a DERIVED artifact from GenerativeSpecification_Compendium.md; keeps the SEVEN properties (not the decagon — that’s the follow-on IEEE Software paper); enforces the confidentiality Gate in SKELETON.md.

A. Drafting status (what exists vs what’s missing)

Section Status Notes
Abstract + contributions ✅ drafted (01-...md) ⚠️ result sentence still has a NUMBER-HOLE — fill from objective metrics (mutation/coverage/static)
§IV.A Structure of the Seven ✅ drafted (02-...md) Two-bridges now UNBLOCKED — lock confirmed Sept 1 (semiotic crossings). Update to the pragmatics→semantics / semantics→syntax framing; keep lifecycle-vs-internal partition as analysis, no SAVED/decagon branding
Related Work (§II) ✅ drafted (03-...md) + refs (04-...md) Highest reviewer risk; verify distinctness-vs-SpecKit framing holds
Introduction (§I) ☐ missing Needs: numbered contributions + RQs + one-sentence organization para
Problem Formalization (§III) ☐ missing Stateless-reader as binding constraint; bridge + sentinel + read-asymmetry
GS: The Discipline (§IV) ☐ missing Seven properties + phase collapse + cost inversion (soften §4.3 token econ per Gate)
Study Design (§V) ☐ missing — the spine Port from Supplement §S1-S4, restructure into Kitchenham’s 6 subsections
Results (§VI) ☐ missing — the spine Port from Supplement §S6/S7/S9, one subsection per RQ, effect-size % + exact p-values, report nulls; objective metrics NOT the 14-pt rubric; + axios teardown + flea-game
Threats to Validity (§VII) ☐ missing 4 buckets, one para each
Discussion (§VIII) + Conclusion (§IX) ☐ missing Port + trim from WP §7/§9
Data Availability & Reproducibility ☐ missing One sentence + persistent DOI + replication package

Honest read: ~35% drafted. The drafted pieces are the framing (abstract, related work, §IVa). The spine (Study Design + Results, §V-VI) is the heavy lift and the credibility of the paper — it does not exist yet in IEEE form, only as Supplement material to be ported + re-structured to Kitchenham + re-scored on objective metrics.

B. Hard requirements checklist

  • ORCID for submitting author: 0009-0004-6092-5387 (JC).
  • IEEE two-column template (LaTeX preferred; Word ok). Source + PDF, ≤40 MB, ≤20 pages.
  • Abstract: single unstructured paragraph, 150-250 words, leads with a concrete number (fill the hole).
  • Index Terms: 3-10 from the IEEE Thesaurus (controlled vocab). Candidates to verify: Software engineering · Artificial intelligence · Software quality · Formal specifications · Software architecture · Program processors / Computer languages · Large language models (verify it’s in the thesaurus).
  • AI-disclosure line in Acknowledgements (mandatory — text was AI-assisted). Draft ready-to-paste (below).
  • CrossCheck / self-similarity: substantially rewrite vs the Zenodo v4.0 preprint; cite the Zenodo DOI (10.5281/zenodo.21726017) as the preprint. Do NOT paste WP prose wholesale.
  • Replication package with its own DOI (Zenodo preferred): the AX benchmark + conditions + replication steps.
  • APC $2,160 (+tax; -5% IEEE member / -20% society member) — approved.
  • English quality — poor grammar = immediate rejection. Do the stateless-external-judge dry-run pass.
  • Cover letter + suggested reviewers.

C. Decisions JC must make (blockers)

  1. Title — lead with #1 (Generative Specification: A Discipline of Derivability for the Stateless Reader) unless you want the reviewer-facing reframe (#2). → pick one.
  2. §IV.A middle path — confirm: keep the lifecycle-vs-internal partition + two-bridges as analysis, NO SAVED/decagon branding, NO 0-100 tool (those stay in the IEEE Software follow-on). (Recommended, already the plan — just confirm.)
  3. The result number for the abstract — which objective metric leads (mutation-score delta? real-coverage delta? static-analysis reduction?). Needs the Supplement number.
  4. Author bio + affiliation — PragmaWorks LLC? independent researcher? (affects the byline).
  5. ORCID ✅ 0009-0004-6092-5387.

D. AI-disclosure line (ready to paste in Acknowledgements)

Portions of this manuscript were drafted with the assistance of AI language models. All technical content, experimental design, results, and conclusions are the author’s own; the author reviewed and verified all AI-assisted text and takes full responsibility for the manuscript.

E. Critical path to submit (in order)

  1. Lock the 5 decisions in §C (fast, JC).
  2. Port + write §V Study Design (Kitchenham 6) and §VI Results (per-RQ, objective metrics) — the spine, the biggest job.
  3. Write §I Intro (contributions + RQs), §III Problem Formalization, §IV Discipline.
  4. Fill the abstract number-hole; update §IVa to the semiotic two-bridges.
  5. Write §VII Threats, §VIII Discussion, §IX Conclusion, Data Availability.
  6. Assemble in the two-column template; build the Zenodo replication package (DOI).
  7. Stateless-external-judge dry-run (English + soundness); revise.
  8. Cover letter + suggested reviewers → submit.

Realistic timeline: the spine (§V-VI) is 1-2 focused sessions; the rest 2-3 more; template assembly + replication package + dry-run 1-2. End-Sept is achievable IF the spine starts now. The bottleneck is §V-VI, not the framing.

F. What I can draft next (no JC input needed)

  • Update §IVa two-bridges to the semiotic-crossings framing (now unblocked).
  • Draft §I Introduction with a candidate contributions list + RQs (JC edits).
  • Draft §V Study Design skeleton in Kitchenham’s 6 subsections from the Supplement (the spine — biggest value).