The question posted to the IJCAI 2026 rebuttal thread is fair, and the anxiety behind it is understandable. But the answer is simpler than most authors fear. You do not need to show reviewer mapping, and you do not need to repeat the paper title. The reviewers see your response attached to your submission, and they already know which paper they are evaluating. The confusion comes from overthinking a process that is designed to be straightforward.
What the original poster is really asking is whether the rebuttal format demands extra effort to make the reviewers' lives easier. That is the wrong instinct. The reviewers are not asking for a decoder ring. They are asking for a direct, point-by-point response to their concerns. If you spend your limited rebuttal space explaining that R1 means Reviewer 1, you are wasting words that could be used to address the actual feedback. The order of reviewers is visible to them, and they know who they are. Your job is not to reorient them; it is to convince them.
The practical takeaway is this: use the rebuttal to engage with the substance of the critiques, not the logistics of the submission system. If a reviewer asks about your method, explain it clearly. If they question your results, show why your analysis holds or acknowledge a limitation honestly. The paper title is on the submission, so repeating it adds nothing. The encoded IDs are for your reference, not for their convenience. Focus your energy on the scientific dialogue, because that is what actually changes scores.
The real risk is not that you omit a mapping. It is that you submit a rebuttal that reads like a cover letter instead of a technical response. Reviewers want clarity, not ceremony. So skip the title, skip the mapping, and get to the math. That is what will earn their respect. And if you are still unsure, err on the side of brevity. A concise, well-structured rebuttal that answers every point directly is worth more than a formatted document that pads the response with redundant headers. The process is there to serve the science, not the other way around.