# kaal:claim:4734750-008

**Claim.** In hierarchical review, the first reviewer's output receives the highest priority and later reviewers add only minor upgrades, so the review becomes the initial reviewer's work product rather than the collective's.

**Type.** failure  **Support.** argued

**Holds when.**

- legacy hierarchical code review processes

**Source quote.**

> The collective of reviewers is also not incentivized to find flaws in the code to optimize code as a work product of the collective. Rather, it is often seen as the work product of the initial reviewer with minor input from follow-up reviewers.

**From.** Wulf A. Kaal, *Code Review DAO* (2024), Market for Code Reviews, page 14

**Cite as.** Wulf A. Kaal, Code Review DAO (2024). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4734750

**Verify.** sha256 of source PDF `60eadf91c0913468505afc664c8d8d1e1673d6c5326d031ca7060addb8ab2eda` at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wulfkaal/Academic-Papers/main/papers/pdf/Kaal%20-%202024%20-%20Code%20Review%20DAO.pdf

**Failure mode.** First reviewer dominance  (family: recentralization-drift)

**Topics.** institutional-design, risk-and-incentives, open-source-and-code

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

**Related claims.**

- restates: https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3995709-013
- restated_by: https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/4755632-019
- extended_by: https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/4755632-018

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