# kaal:claim:4734750-011

**Claim.** Without crowd control, a code reviewer can impose their own logic on the author, forcing repeated rewrites of code whose core functionality is already sound and whose dangerous issues are already controlled for.

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

**Holds when.**

- legacy code review with a single authoritative reviewer

**Source quote.**

> Because the code reviewer may wish to impose their logic on the code author, the code author may be required to rewrite code over and over even though the core functionality of the code is sound and dangerous issues were controlled for.

**From.** Wulf A. Kaal, *Code Review DAO* (2024), Single Points of Failure, 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.** Reviewer preference imposition  (family: board-and-oversight-failure)

**Topics.** institutional-design

**Keywords.** single-point-of-failure, reviewer-discretion, rework, crowd-control

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