From submission to publication
An organiser reads the plain-text email first and checks that it explains a proof already in the original repository. Proposals for new problems or additional solutions should be made there through a pull request. The original mathematical statement, attribution and linked material are reviewed separately. Questions go back to the author before the proposed public version is agreed.
Only approved material belongs on the website. A library page should lead with the digest authors and their explanation. It should separately cite the first proof in the original repository, identify its exact source version, describe the intended audience, state what review or formal checking actually took place, and link to the DOI of the archived explanation.
What the review looks for
Understanding: does the explanation help its intended reader grasp the ideas and follow the proof? Faithfulness: does it preserve the original claim, assumptions and essential steps? Context: do historical attribution, applications or worked examples add useful understanding where included? Care: are limitations, sources and the nature of any verification accurately described? The sophistication of the mathematics is not itself a measure of quality.
Private review material
Organisers can use the private repository’s Issues for the panel’s notes. Only invited collaborators can participate there; entrants do not need access to the repository. Do not put unpublished entries, personal information or confidential judge notes in the website files, even when the repository itself is private.
Keep routine email correspondence and review access limited to the organisers and panel. No public page on this site is a password-protected judge portal.
Publication and code handling
Do not run submitted programs, shell commands, notebooks, build scripts or Lean projects on a judging computer. An external hosting link is not proof that a file is safe. Browser updates, cautious link handling and isolated reproduction remain important.
Corrections
Send corrections or concerns to mjc249@maths.cam.ac.uk, with the relevant page and a precise explanation. A review label records the work actually done; it is not a promise that errors are impossible.