# ACM Revision TODOs

Source reviewed:
- `review.md`
- `README.md`
- `readme_for_codex_file_sharing.md`
- `paper/main.tex`

## High-priority synthesis revisions

- [ ] Add stronger synthesis at the end of each major technical section. For every family of methods, state what appears to work best, what remains immature, and which practical tradeoffs matter most.
- [ ] Reduce paper-by-paper narration where possible. Replace repeated "work A does X, work B does Y" passages with comparative discussion across methods, tools, and assumptions.
- [ ] Add practical guidance for researchers and practitioners. Include clear recommendations on where to start for testing, debugging, analysis, and optimization under realistic constraints.
- [ ] Add or expand comparative summary material beyond taxonomy. Capture dimensions such as scalability, assumptions, intrusiveness, target platform, maturity, and expected utility.

## Section-specific reviewer TODOs

- [ ] Section 2.2: Add a brief comparison of Qiskit, Cirq, Q#, and other major platforms, emphasizing architectural differences that affect applicability of surveyed approaches.
- [ ] Section 3: Either revise the title to match the current focus on expected behavior or add a subsection characterizing unexpected behavior and quantum program bugs.
- [ ] Section 4.4: Expand the debugging discussion substantially, or explicitly frame the short coverage as evidence of limited existing support and connect it to the open challenge section.
- [ ] Section 5.3: Emphasize that the pattern-based approaches are Qiskit/Python-specific and connect this limitation to the standardization-versus-diversity discussion.
- [ ] Section 6 / Table 6: Clarify how multi-goal optimization approaches achieve multiple goals at once, especially cases such as SQUARE.
- [ ] Section 8: Make the relationships between open challenges explicit, especially scalability with test oracles, and debugging with abstraction level.
- [ ] Section 8: Convert vague open challenges into concrete recommendations and actionable next steps for researchers and tool builders.

## Methodology and coverage

- [ ] Add a short methodology description explaining the literature search strategy, inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, and how the 102 works were selected.
- [ ] Explicitly discuss cross-cutting limitations throughout the paper instead of deferring them only to the outlook section.
- [ ] Strengthen the discussion of debugging as an emerging practice by identifying available strategies, current gaps, and realistic workflows.

## Bibliography and metadata cleanup

- [ ] Replace the ACM template received/revised/accepted placeholders currently set to 2007/2009 dates.
- [ ] Consolidate or justify duplicate Quarl references, noted by the reviewer as references [52] and [53].
- [ ] Consolidate or justify duplicate VOQC references, noted by the reviewer as references [36] and [37].
- [ ] Clarify the distinction between the AutoQ references, noted by the reviewer as references [18] and [19].
- [ ] Update the outdated title in reference [107] to the final published version if available.

## Submission workflow

- [ ] Use the `revision_latexdiff/` workflow to prepare a marked-up revision PDF after manuscript edits.
- [ ] In the response to reviewers, map each reviewer point to specific manuscript changes and section/page locations.
- [ ] Delete redundant submission files before uploading the revised manuscript.