I recently submitted a paper and realized there is a minor discrepancy in the narrative. I ran additonal experiments that combine my method with other approaches, showing improvements can be made. The tables in my results section clearly show that a specific method performs significantly better only when integrated with my proposed strategy. However, the text does not explicitly state this and states that my method has better performance in all cases where I did not combine my method with the others. This means I have to change one sentence in my paper.

Given that the data is accurate and the improvement can be inferred from the tables, could this narrative oversight lead to an immediate rejection? The conference does not have a revision period, only a camera-ready submission.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

I recently submitted a paper and realized there is a minor discrepancy in the narrative. I ran additonal experiments that combine my method with other approaches, showing improvements can be made. The tables in my results section clearly show that a specific method performs significantly better only when integrated with my proposed strategy. However, the text does not explicitly state this and states that my method has better performance in all cases where I did not combine my method with the others. This means I have to change one sentence in my paper.

Given that the data is accurate and the improvement can be inferred from the tables, could this narrative oversight lead to an immediate rejection? The conference does not have a revision period, only a camera-ready submission.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Edit: I do not want to ask for a change, I want to estimate my chances. The focus of the experiment was different, and the implied results are clearly stated. I made a comparison error, which led to an incorrect conclusion about the data in one instance. However, this does not affect my proposed method.

I recently submitted a paper and realized there is a minor discrepancy in the narrative. I ran additonal experiments that combine my method with other approaches, showing improvements can be made. The tables in my results section clearly show that a specific method performs significantly better only when integrated with my proposed strategy. However, the text does not explicitly state this and states that my method has better performance in all cases. This means I have to change one sentence in my paper.

Given that the data is accurate and the improvement can be inferred from the tables, could this narrative oversight lead to an immediate rejection? The conference does not have a revision period, only a camera-ready submission.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

I recently submitted a paper and realized there is a minor discrepancy in the narrative. I ran additonal experiments that combine my method with other approaches, showing improvements can be made. The tables in my results section clearly show that a specific method performs significantly better only when integrated with my proposed strategy. However, the text does not explicitly state this and states that my method has better performance in all cases where I did not combine my method with the others. This means I have to change one sentence in my paper.

Given that the data is accurate and the improvement can be inferred from the tables, could this narrative oversight lead to an immediate rejection? The conference does not have a revision period, only a camera-ready submission.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.