SOSP Writing Style
Use this at drafting and revision time for a SOSP paper. The format constants (2026
cycle, checked 2026-07-08 against the official author guidelines): at most 12 pages
of technical content in submission, 10-point font on 12-point leading, a 7 x 9 inch
text block in two columns, references uncounted. Those pages are read first by a
skeptical fast pass and later defended live at a PC meeting — the prose must arm an
advocate, not just inform a reader.
Lead with the principle, not the artifact
The recurring identity question at this venue is "what is the principle?" A SOSP
paper is remembered as an idea with a system attached, not a system with features
attached. Concretely:
- Somewhere on page one, a sentence must exist that survives extraction: the
insight, stated so a PC member can repeat it at the meeting without the paper
open ("crash consistency can be delegated to the allocation layer because ...").
- Feature-list intros ("we present X, which supports A, B, and C") read as
workshop papers. Replace the list with the tension the design resolves.
- If the honest one-sentence version is "we engineered X to be faster", the routing
question comes before the writing question (see
sosp-topic-selection).
The first-page arc
| Move |
Job |
Symptom when missing |
| Problem, concrete |
Reader can picture the failing scenario |
Intro opens with a market-size claim |
| Why existing systems fail |
The gap is structural, not un-tried |
Related work reads as the real intro |
| Insight |
The extractable principle |
Reviewers summarize the paper differently from you |
| Embodiment |
The system, named, one paragraph |
Insight floats with no evidence anchor |
| Headline evidence |
2-3 measured numbers with baselines named |
"Extensive experiments show" |
| Honest scope |
One clause on what the design gives up |
The meeting discovers the limitation for you |
Budgeting twelve dense pages
A workable allocation for a design-plus-evaluation SOSP paper; deviate deliberately:
Intro + motivation 1.5 pp the arc above, plus the motivating measurement
Design 4.0 pp principle -> mechanisms; invariants stated inline
Implementation 1.0 pp what was built, LoC, what is borrowed vs new
Evaluation 4.0 pp claims mapped to experiments (see sosp-experiments)
Related work 0.75 pp positioning, not survey (see sosp-related-work)
Discussion + conclusion 0.75 pp limitations owned, generality argued
(references uncounted — never starve them)
When over length, cut prose before leading or figures: geometry tampering is a
desk-reject at this venue, and shrunken figures cost more reviewer goodwill than a
trimmed subsection. Move depth (full proofs, extra sweeps) to the supplement, never
review-critical evidence (see sosp-supplementary).
Figures that argue
Systems reviewers read figures before prose on the fast pass. Each figure earns its
column-inches by making a claim on its own:
- Caption states the takeaway ("Recovery replays only the log tail; time is flat in
log size"), not the axes ("Recovery time vs. log size").
- Baselines appear in the figure, labeled with the same names the text uses.
- Distributions for tail claims: a p99 bar with no spread is an invitation to a
soundness attack.
Register and claim discipline
- Present tense, active voice, the system as subject: "Foo batches acknowledgments"
beats "acknowledgments are batched by our approach."
- Every superlative is a target at the PC meeting. "Fast" is free; "faster than
Bar on write-heavy YCSB by 2.1x" is defensible; "optimal" had better come with
a proof.
- Anonymized self-reference in third person throughout — the double-blind rules
reach into style ("the Foo paper showed", not "we previously showed").
- Define each invariant once, name it (I1, I2 ...), and cite the name thereafter;
the response phase will need those anchors when a review misstates one.
# Weasel-word and overclaim sweep before the freeze
pdftotext main.pdf - | grep -inE 'significant(ly)? (improve|outperform)|extensive experiments|novel(ty)? |clearly|obviously|optimal' | head -20
Revision protocol
- Extract the paper skeleton: first sentence of every paragraph, read in order. If
the skeleton does not carry the argument, restructure before polishing.
- Give the draft to a systems reader for a strict 15-minute pass — abstract, intro,
figures, conclusion — and ask them to state the principle. Wrong answer means a
page-one problem, whatever they say about section 4.
- Only then line-edit for density: merge stub paragraphs, collapse enumerations
that repeat their lead-in, delete signposting that restates section titles.
Output format
[Principle] extractable one-liner found on page one? <quote it>
[Arc audit] problem / gap / insight / embodiment / evidence / scope — which missing
[Budget] section page allocation vs the 12-page plan
[Figures] each figure's caption-claim; baselines in-figure?
[Claim sweep] overclaims found -> defensible rewrite
[Skeleton verdict] argument carries on first sentences alone? <yes/no>
1---2name: sosp-writing-style3description: Use when drafting or revising SOSP prose — leading with a design principle rather than a feature list, building the intro's problem-to-insight arc, budgeting 12 dense two-column pages across design and evaluation, writing figures that argue, and keeping claims inside what the measurements support.4---56# SOSP Writing Style78Use this at drafting and revision time for a SOSP paper. The format constants (20269cycle, checked 2026-07-08 against the official author guidelines): at most 12 pages10of technical content in submission, 10-point font on 12-point leading, a 7 x 9 inch11text block in two columns, references uncounted. Those pages are read first by a12skeptical fast pass and later defended live at a PC meeting — the prose must arm an13advocate, not just inform a reader.1415## Lead with the principle, not the artifact1617The recurring identity question at this venue is "what is the *principle*?" A SOSP18paper is remembered as an idea with a system attached, not a system with features19attached. Concretely:2021- Somewhere on page one, a sentence must exist that survives extraction: the22 insight, stated so a PC member can repeat it at the meeting without the paper23 open ("crash consistency can be delegated to the allocation layer because ...").24- Feature-list intros ("we present X, which supports A, B, and C") read as25 workshop papers. Replace the list with the tension the design resolves.26- If the honest one-sentence version is "we engineered X to be faster", the routing27 question comes before the writing question (see `sosp-topic-selection`).2829## The first-page arc3031| Move | Job | Symptom when missing |32|---|---|---|33| Problem, concrete | Reader can picture the failing scenario | Intro opens with a market-size claim |34| Why existing systems fail | The gap is structural, not un-tried | Related work reads as the real intro |35| Insight | The extractable principle | Reviewers summarize the paper differently from you |36| Embodiment | The system, named, one paragraph | Insight floats with no evidence anchor |37| Headline evidence | 2-3 measured numbers with baselines named | "Extensive experiments show" |38| Honest scope | One clause on what the design gives up | The meeting discovers the limitation for you |3940## Budgeting twelve dense pages4142A workable allocation for a design-plus-evaluation SOSP paper; deviate deliberately:4344```text45Intro + motivation 1.5 pp the arc above, plus the motivating measurement46Design 4.0 pp principle -> mechanisms; invariants stated inline47Implementation 1.0 pp what was built, LoC, what is borrowed vs new48Evaluation 4.0 pp claims mapped to experiments (see sosp-experiments)49Related work 0.75 pp positioning, not survey (see sosp-related-work)50Discussion + conclusion 0.75 pp limitations owned, generality argued51(references uncounted — never starve them)52```5354When over length, cut prose before leading or figures: geometry tampering is a55desk-reject at this venue, and shrunken figures cost more reviewer goodwill than a56trimmed subsection. Move *depth* (full proofs, extra sweeps) to the supplement, never57review-critical evidence (see `sosp-supplementary`).5859## Figures that argue6061Systems reviewers read figures before prose on the fast pass. Each figure earns its62column-inches by making a claim on its own:6364- Caption states the takeaway ("Recovery replays only the log tail; time is flat in65 log size"), not the axes ("Recovery time vs. log size").66- Baselines appear *in* the figure, labeled with the same names the text uses.67- Distributions for tail claims: a p99 bar with no spread is an invitation to a68 soundness attack.6970## Register and claim discipline7172- Present tense, active voice, the system as subject: "Foo batches acknowledgments"73 beats "acknowledgments are batched by our approach."74- Every superlative is a target at the PC meeting. "Fast" is free; "faster than75 Bar on write-heavy YCSB by 2.1x" is defensible; "optimal" had better come with76 a proof.77- Anonymized self-reference in third person throughout — the double-blind rules78 reach into style ("the Foo paper showed", not "we previously showed").79- Define each invariant once, name it (I1, I2 ...), and cite the name thereafter;80 the response phase will need those anchors when a review misstates one.8182```bash83# Weasel-word and overclaim sweep before the freeze84pdftotext main.pdf - | grep -inE 'significant(ly)? (improve|outperform)|extensive experiments|novel(ty)? |clearly|obviously|optimal' | head -2085```8687## Revision protocol88891. Extract the paper skeleton: first sentence of every paragraph, read in order. If90 the skeleton does not carry the argument, restructure before polishing.912. Give the draft to a systems reader for a strict 15-minute pass — abstract, intro,92 figures, conclusion — and ask them to state the principle. Wrong answer means a93 page-one problem, whatever they say about section 4.943. Only then line-edit for density: merge stub paragraphs, collapse enumerations95 that repeat their lead-in, delete signposting that restates section titles.9697## Output format9899```text100[Principle] extractable one-liner found on page one? <quote it>101[Arc audit] problem / gap / insight / embodiment / evidence / scope — which missing102[Budget] section page allocation vs the 12-page plan103[Figures] each figure's caption-claim; baselines in-figure?104[Claim sweep] overclaims found -> defensible rewrite105[Skeleton verdict] argument carries on first sentences alone? <yes/no>106```
brycewang-stanford