- ![525.pdf](../assets/525_1725987641158_0.pdf)
- **Review**
	- **Technical Innovation **
	  * [ ] 1 - Routine work, untested technical work or impractical idea
	  * [ ] 2 - Good work, not particularly novel, akin to a routine evolution of existing technologies
	  * [x] 3 - Good technical work with some novel features described
	  * [ ] 4 - Very innovative technical work that demonstrates clear thought leadership for HPE
	  * [ ] 5 - Clearly a breakthrough with significant technical innovation
	- **Business Impact**
	  * [ ] 1 - Impractical idea; limited business value
	  * [ ] 2 - Good work, but with limited direct or indirect business value, no clear path to capture business value+
	  * [x] 3 - Moderate business impact that merits further assessment
	  * [ ] 4 - Work will provide HPE with valuable and meaningful differentiation in the market
	  * [ ] 5 - Clearly and significant impacts HPE’s business, opens new market opportunities
	- **Clarity of Presentation**
	  * [ ] 1 - Difficult to understand; confusing; incomplete description; very short
	  * [ ] 2 - Hard to follow; uses unfamiliar terminology or acronyms; missing important data
	  * [ ] 3 - Understandable but lacking some relevant information
	  * [x] 4 - Clear and logical; some important information is missing or unclear
	  * [ ] 5 - Very clearly described; logical flow; well supported with practical results and proof points
	- **Overall Recommendation**
	  * [ ] 1 - Reject
	  * [ ] 2 - Weak Reject
	  * [x] 3 - Weak Accept
	  * [ ] 4 - Accept
	  * [ ] 5 - Strong Accept
	- **Suggested Presentation Style**
	  *What type of presentation do you recommend for this submission?*  
	  * [ ] Formal Session
	  * [x] Poster Session
	  * [ ] Not recommended for presentation
	- **Favorite**
	  * [x] No
	  * [ ] Yes
	- **Reviewer Confidence**
	  * [ ] 1 - No confidence - I am not qualified to pass judgement on this submission
	  * [ ] 2 - Low confidence - I do not have enough experience in this area to make a definitive decision on this submission
	  * [ ] 3 - Somewhat confident - I have a reasonable understanding of this research area
	  * [x] 4 - Confident - I have considerable confidence in my review and understanding of this work
	  * [ ] 5 - Very Confident - I am confident in my review and understanding of the work
	- **Comments for the Authors**
	  *Provide constructive comments to the author(s).*
		- The author(s) a challenge related to troubleshooting networks i.e. that it is often very difficult to troubleshoot issues while the problem is not actively happening. The solution proposed is primarily load simulation tool that allows replaying real application traffic (with modified IP/MAC addresses) over a specific network, and can these loads can be triggered by interacting with an NLP based system. The resulting logs/stats are then processed with an ML platform to provide insights and the ability to process the logs further.
		- I think this is a solid idea and worth pursuing further. The two main questions I would like to see explored further are the potential to dynamically generate the PCAP data (potentially using GenAI, but hallucinations will need to be tamed) to reduce overall storage needs, and the ability for either the user to upload a PCAP to be used for replay.
	- **Comments for the Program Committee (authors will not see these comments)**
	  *Provide comments to the PC (if any) that should not be shared with the author(s).*
		- <PLACEHOLDER>