How to Label Your Contributions When Submitting an Interactive Story Sample: Let Reviewers See What You Were Responsible For
When co-creators submit joint work, what confuses reviewers most is not the work itself but "which parts of this did you make." The goal of labeling contributions is concrete: after reading the material description, reviewers can distinguish author responsibilities, existing materials, collaborator responsibilities, and unfinished parts, and can find representative excerpts and reviewable objects. Below is a fictional teaching example. The people, works, and data in the example are all fabricated and only used to demonstrate the format.
Introduction
When co-creators submit joint work, what confuses reviewers most is not the work itself but "which parts of this did you make." The goal of labeling contributions is concrete: after reading the material description, reviewers can distinguish author responsibilities, existing materials, collaborator responsibilities, and unfinished parts, and can find representative excerpts and reviewable objects. Below is a fictional teaching example. The people, works, and data in the example are all fabricated and only used to demonstrate the format.
First build a four-column material description
The material description is not a copyright statement, nor is it a revenue-split negotiation document. It only answers "who did what, and to what extent it is now." It is recommended to use a four-column table, one sentence per column, without evaluative words.
| Column | What to write | What not to write |
|---|---|---|
| Author responsible | Specific actions and outputs | "led," "core," "most" |
| Existing materials | Source, how obtained, whether public | Praise for material quality |
| Collaborator responsible | Products the other party clearly delivered | Guessing the other party's time investment |
| Unfinished parts | What is missing, where it is stuck | "Can be filled in soon" |
Fictional example: Two people collaborate on an interactive story, Letters from Fog Harbor. The author, Alan, is responsible for the branch structure, the protagonist's backstory, and the text of three endings; the collaborator, Xiaozhou, is responsible for the dialogue of two supporting characters, one chapter's scene description, and a cover sketch. Existing materials include a same-titled short story Alan wrote two years ago (unpublished) and an old map with purchased authorization. The unfinished parts are the fourth chapter's dialogue, which Xiaozhou has not yet delivered, and the final wording of all choices.
The value of this table is that reviewers do not have to guess. When Alan writes "branch structure" rather than "overall design," it is more verifiable, because reviewers can open the node table and see that the branches really exist.
Representative excerpts need annotations, not just links
If you only give a finished link, reviewers still do not know which passage reflects whose contribution. It is recommended to select three to five representative excerpts, each with an annotation in the format "location + action + basis for judgment."
Fictional sample annotation:
Excerpt: Chapter 2, meeting at the dock, three branches A/B/C. Annotation: The text and conditions of the three branches were written by Alan; the trigger condition for choice C refers to the character goal description provided by Xiaozhou. Basis for judgment: node table group 2, the branch text signature column is Alan, and the character goal document was delivered by Xiaozhou.
This annotation does three things: locates, explains the action, and gives a checkable basis. It does not say "this passage is the best written," nor does it say "Xiaozhou only made suggestions." If Xiaozhou's goal description was directly rewritten into the condition, write "rewritten from the character goal description delivered by Xiaozhou," not vaguely "discussed together."
The selection criterion for representative excerpts can be "best shows the difference in division of labor," not "most exciting." A dialogue passage where you can see the two people's different writing styles is more explanatory than a monologue where you cannot tell who wrote it.
Collaborator-responsible parts must clearly mark delivery status
For content the collaborator is responsible for, two mistakes are most likely: writing the other party's verbal idea as delivered, or writing the other party's draft as final. It is recommended to add a status word in the collaborator column: delivered, draft, pending confirmation, not started.
In the fictional example, Xiaozhou delivered the dialogue of two supporting characters (delivered), one chapter's scene description (draft, not yet integrated by Alan), and the cover sketch (delivered, but authorization scope pending confirmation). The fourth chapter's dialogue is written as "not started," not "in progress," because Alan has not received any file.
There is a boundary here: when a character makes up an excuse, it must be clearly marked that it is not a new world fact. For example, in the draft Xiaozhou has a supporting character say, "I didn't go to the dock that day." This is only a character line; it does not mean that in the story world they really did not go. If Alan writes in the annotation, "Xiaozhou added the setting that the supporting character did not go to the dock," he has mistaken the line for a world fact. The correct wording is, "In Xiaozhou's draft, a supporting character has a line denying going to the dock; whether to adopt it is pending."
Unfinished parts should be written as to-dos, not apologies
For unfinished parts, write three things clearly: what is missing, what it affects, and who needs to decide. Do not write "sorry for the slow progress" or "will fill it in soon."
Fictional example:
- Missing the fourth chapter's dialogue, affecting the text of three choices in that chapter; after Xiaozhou delivers it, Alan needs to integrate it.
- The authorization scope of the cover sketch is unconfirmed, affecting whether it can be used in a public link; both parties need to communicate.
- The trigger condition for ending C has not been tested, affecting branch reachability in the playable preview; Alan needs to check it after integration.
These three items are all reviewable objects: reviewers can ask "when will Chapter 4 arrive," "what does authorization scope mean," and "how is ending C tested?" If you only write "there are still some things not finished," reviewers cannot judge whether this material can be viewed now.
Rights matters pending discussion should be listed separately, not mixed into the contribution description
The contribution description answers "what was done"; rights communication answers "how to credit, how to use, how to distribute." If the two are mixed together, reviewers will think you are demanding a split before submission. It is recommended to have a separate section titled "Matters pending discussion," listing only questions without conclusions.
Fictional example:
- Credit order: The credit order of Alan and Xiaozhou in the public link has not yet been agreed.
- Scope of use of the existing short story: Whether Alan's short story from two years ago may be rewritten into the interactive story has not yet been confirmed with Xiaozhou.
- Cover sketch authorization: Whether Xiaozhou's sketch may be used in a public preview is pending Xiaozhou's confirmation.
- Responsibility for later revisions: If reviewers request changes to Chapter 4, who will revise it has not yet been agreed.
This section does not guarantee collaboration support or a split; it only lays out the matters that need to be discussed. When reviewers see this section, they know which matters cannot be decided for you right now.
Completion check
Before submission, check item by item:
- Does each column of the four-column table have specific outputs, without words like "led" or "core"?
- Do representative excerpts include location, action, and basis for judgment, and is the basis checkable?
- Does the collaborator column mark delivery status, and are drafts and delivered items separated?
- Have character lines not been written as new world facts?
- Do unfinished parts state what is missing, what it affects, and who needs to decide?
- Are rights matters pending discussion listed separately, not mixed into the contribution description?
- Can reviewers find reviewable objects based only on this material, without needing to ask "who wrote this passage?"
If item 7 cannot be achieved, go back to item 2 and add annotations. If in item 3 a draft has been written as delivered, change the status word before submitting.
A reusable minimal template
Work name: [fictional name] Author responsible: [specific outputs] Existing materials: [source + how obtained + whether public] Collaborator responsible: [outputs + status] Unfinished: [what is missing + impact + who decides] Representative excerpts: [location + annotation] Matters pending discussion: [credit, scope of use, revision responsibility]
This template does not solve revenue splitting, nor does it guarantee that reviewers will accept it. It only lets reviewers know, after reading the first screen, who is responsible for what in this joint work, what can be viewed now, and what is still missing.
Before your next submission, first open your node table or document and replace every word in the "Author responsible" column with the name of an output that can be opened and viewed. If you cannot replace them, it means the contributions have not been clearly labeled.
