> This is not true. The paper was submitted for internal review with about the median amount of notice. This is true. There was a requested amount of time and

> This is not true. The paper was submitted for internal review with about the median amount of notice. This is true. There was a requested amount of time and it was not met. To show discrimination you'd also have to show median quality and median editing work required. This paper had a lot of flaws that would be hard to correct without writing it again. > Importantly, the paper actually passed the normal review process before being submitted to the conference. But not the corporate review where the people paying the money decided if they thought it was good to attach their name to. > It's unclear to what extent the special review was a go/no-go review. Not at all. There was a strong 'No Go' message given. That's how you know. > The review however was not due to the paper being submitted late. The "don't bother fixing stuff, we're just kiboshing it" part was. > after the paper had been submitted externally and approved by the normal internal process. The normal internal process is about writing quality and fact-checking. The corporate review is entirely separate and always last in the process in order to see the latest version. > Even after submission for conference review, there was ample time for back and forth and review internally. No, not for the level of rework they thought it should receive. If it had passed then sure. The reason to meet the deadline is to handle the situation where it doesn't pass on the first go. > Timnit asked if there was feedback she could incorporate into the paper And her bosses decided that the paper wasn't worth the last-minute work. I imagine they felt she submitted it late to game the system. > Google's response was initially to not provide any specific feedback, and then to say that the feedback could not be addressed, the paper could only be unsubmitted Right, because it wasn't feedback to her. That ship had sailed. It was confidential feedback to her boss about their belief in the quality of the work. To share that feedback would put innocent employees in a Damore position, attacked for feedback they'd been asked to write. Given how she attacked her boss by name it's reasonable to think she'd have included the coworkers, where they'd be pounced on by an angry twitter mob. > Actually yes, that appears to be precisely what happened. No. The preprint was released. Google just said "not in our name". And now that she resigned she has the freedom.