The quiet on your paper is not a referendum on its quality, and it is not a sign that your work failed. It is a symptom of a process straining under new expectations, and the frustration you are feeling is a direct consequence of how those expectations are being unevenly applied. The push for consensus in AI paper reviews is real, but it is being interpreted and enforced by humans with different thresholds for urgency, and your AC appears to be one of the humans who has decided that your paper does not need a final nudge. That is not a judgment on your contribution; it is a judgment on prioritization.
What you are observing is the gap between the stated goal and the daily reality. The ACs who are active on your other papers are responding to pressure from above to close the loop, to get final justifications, to show that the review process ended with a clear narrative. They are doing that because their own performance is being measured by it. But your AC, for whatever reason, is not feeling that same pressure for your paper. The result is an asymmetry: you see reviewers on other papers being pushed to finish their justifications, while your own reviewers sit silent. That asymmetry is not about your paper's merit. It is about a coordinator who is either overloaded, under-resourced, or simply less inclined to chase down stragglers when the outcome already feels decided.
The practical takeaway here is not to read meaning into the silence, but to recognize that the system is in a transitional phase where consensus is a target, not a guarantee. The pressure on ACs to produce final justifications is real, but it is applied unevenly, and that unevenness creates the exact kind of confusion you are experiencing. Your 3344 is not a failure; it is a signal that your reviewers had genuine disagreements, and those disagreements are valuable even if they do not get resolved in writing. The missing final justifications are not a reflection of your paper's worth; they are a reflection of a process that has not yet figured out how to make every AC as diligent as the next.
What you can do, practically, is stop measuring your paper's status by the activity on other papers. The AC who is quiet on yours may simply be the one who believes the discussion is over and that pushing for a final justification would not change the outcome. That is not a dismissal of your work; it is a judgment about the review's trajectory. The system is moving toward consensus, but it is moving at the pace of individual ACs, and that pace is not a reliable indicator of quality. Your job now is to read the reviews you have, extract what is useful, and prepare your rebuttal for the next venue. The silence is not a verdict. It is just silence.