# kaal:claim:3995709-013

**Claim.** In hierarchical legacy review processes the first reviewer's output gets the highest priority and follow on reviewers add only minor upgrades, so the collective of reviewers is not incentivized to find flaws and optimize the code as a collective work product.

**Type.** mechanism  **Support.** argued

**Holds when.**

- legacy code review firms
- hierarchical ordering of reviewers

**Source quote.**

> often gets the highest priority and is often merely followed with minor upgrades by follow-on reviewers. The collective of reviewers is also not incentivized to find flaws in the code to optimize code as a work product of the collective.

**From.** Wulf A. Kaal, *How DAOs Optimize Open-Source Code Reviews and Create Open-Source Standards* (2021), Flawed Code Review Process, page 12

**Cite as.** Wulf A. Kaal, How DAOs Optimize Open-Source Code Reviews and Create Open-Source Standards (2021). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3995709

**Verify.** sha256 of source PDF `6d77dbfb15ee86080bfde0b98089180cabafeb6defdf0f05eaaeb3cb99871e89` at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wulfkaal/Academic-Papers/main/papers/pdf/Kaal%20-%202021%20-%20How%20DAOs%20Optimize%20Open-Source%20Code%20Reviews%20and%20Create%20Open-Source%20Standards.pdf

**Failure mode.** first reviewer anchoring in hierarchical review  (family: governance-participation-collapse)

**Topics.** institutional-design, risk-and-incentives

**Keywords.** hierarchy, reviewer-incentives, collective-review, legacy-review

**Related claims.**

- restated_by: https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/4734750-008
- restated_by: https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/4755632-019
- extended_by: https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/4734750-010

**Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of the claim. Its sha256 is the content hash used for attestation.