Conference optionally requests prior versions and reviews - should I submit this info?

Question

Besides the anonymized manuscript of the paper, a conference in my field (HCI) "highly encourages" to also submit

1. the venue and ID where the paper was previously submitted (and rejected)
2. a description of the revisions made
3. (optional) the prior rejected version of the paper (anonymized pdf)
4. (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?

Answer 1

An odd request. That said, thinking strategically, since it's "highly encouraged" honoring it might increase the chances for acceptance.

Answer 2

I would say that providing this information will usually not be in your best interest as an author. The only time I would be tempted to do so is if the reviewers explicitly praised the value of the previous submission, but rejected it based on a concern you have now very clearly and completely fixed.

This seems like a rare situation. In most cases you are probably better served with reviewers evaluating the pros and cons of your work with fresh eyes and without being biased by the (presumably negative) comments a previous version of your work has received.

Maybe I'm too cynical, but I'm with Buffy that I suspect the main reason for asking for this is to give the reviewers a quick out to say "clearly the concerns of the previous reviewers have not been addressed, reject". As author I would not be inclined to play along with this game.