Besides the anonymized manuscript of the paper, a conference in my field (HCI) "highly encourages" to also submit
- the venue and ID where the paper was previously submitted (and rejected)
- a description of the revisions made
- (optional) the prior rejected version of the paper (anonymized pdf)
- (optional) the full set of reviews on this previously rejected paper (including reviewer numbers, expertise, score, and review)
It is unclear to me what good all this information would do in the review process. (It is also not mentioned who will see the info - chairs only, ACs, or all reviewers?)
I don't see what good it would bring to demonstrate that my paper has been strengthened since the last rejection. That's a given, and only the submitted manuscript should be evaluated.
Should I disclose all this optional information, or submit only the bare minimum? What is the best strategy here?