I know I'm not part of this domain, but I've always found it interesting how papers really seem to "bury the lede" beyond an abstract. I feel like if I were wr

I know I'm not part of this domain, but I've always found it interesting how papers really seem to "bury the lede" beyond an abstract. I feel like if I were writing a paper like this, by the time I get to Lemma 70, I would put in all caps "THIS IS WHAT WE WANT", and then recap backwards to show how this links back to the original idea. It's never in this style though, and I think it's a shame. Both in CS and math papers, people seem to understand the point of pitching abstracts, but would benefit from a bit of a second-level or third-level outline throughout the paper IMO.