Put the interaction contribution on the first page: the multiagent problem, why single-agent or centralized fixes fail, the mechanism or learning rule, the strategic property, and the evidence.
Name the solution concept or incentive property (Nash, correlated, coarse-correlated, no-regret, dominant-strategy truthful, Pareto); an unnamed "equilibrium" is a review flag.
Make the game legible: agents, actions, information structure, and payoffs stated once and clearly.
Pair every major claim with a proof sketch, a self-play or population experiment, or a deployment result.
Use the 8-page body for the core argument and push long proofs, extra opponents, and extended ablations to the appendix (references are unlimited, so cite generously).
Keep double-blind wording in self-citations, prior-system references, acknowledgements, and artifact descriptions.

Interaction-first discipline

State early why the result is genuinely multiagent - what breaks if the other agents are frozen into a static environment. If nothing breaks, the AAMAS framing does not hold.
Give each theorem a body-level proof sketch; the appendix proof supports the sketch but never replaces it.
Keep the game's information structure visible; who knows what and when is where multiagent proofs live or die.
Separate a proved strategic property from an observed one; mixing "is truthful" and "appears cooperative" in one paragraph is a credibility leak here.

Sentence-level rewrites

Draft pattern	AAMAS-safe rewrite
"Our agents outperform the baselines..."	"reduce social cost by X (SE Y) over Z seeds against held-out opponents"
"The agents reach equilibrium..."	"converge to a coarse-correlated equilibrium (Def. 2) under Assumptions 1-3"
"The mechanism is fair and efficient..."	"is dominant-strategy truthful (Thm. 1) with efficiency loss bounded by ... (Thm. 2)"
"In a multiagent setting..."	Name the game, the number of agents, and the information structure

Vignette: compressing into eight two-column pages

A draft with two theorems, a mechanism, six figures, and a sprawling related-work section: keep both theorem statements with one sketch each, the mechanism definition, and the two decision-critical figures (truthfulness-under-learning and the efficiency gap); compress related work into precise contrasts; move secondary lemmas and four figures to the appendix with forward references. The test of a good cut: a reviewer reconstructs the whole interaction argument without opening the supplement.

Output format

[Writing diagnosis] clear / interaction-buried / concept-unnamed / overloaded
[First-page fix] <new interaction framing>
[Claim discipline] <claim -> proof / experiment / limitation>
[Compression cuts] <move / delete / merge>
[Anonymity edits] <phrases to rewrite>

aamas-writing-style

AAMAS Writing Style

Revision rules