[R] Best way to tackle this ICML vague response?

A researcher navigating the peer review process for the International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML) 2024 has hit a procedural wall, sparking discussion online. After submitting a rebuttal to address three specific weaknesses pointed out by a reviewer, the author received a vague follow-up. The reviewer acknowledged the experiments "greatly improved the paper" but stated "some details remain only partially clarified," marking the response as 'Partially resolved' without listing any new, actionable questions. This leaves the author in a bind, as the official ICML system allows for "one additional response to any further reviewer comments," but none were provided.

The confusion deepened with a subsequent email from ICML organizers, which stated that the "discussion with the authors will last until April 7th" and encouraged authors to "follow up with questions or further discussion." This appears to contradict the earlier rule of a single additional response, creating mixed signals about the protocol. The situation underscores a frequent frustration in high-stakes academic publishing, where opaque feedback and unclear communication channels can significantly impact a paper's acceptance chances at a top-tier AI conference.