# kaal:claim:4734750-013

**Claim.** When the first reviewer misses a defect and follow-on reviewers anchor entirely on the first reviewer's concerns, the review carries a higher risk of inaccuracy; crowd wisdom is one way to correct this myopia and single point of failure.

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

**Holds when.**

- sequential review processes anchored on an initial reviewer

**Source quote.**

> If the single author of a code review has missed something and the follow-on reviewer focused entirely on the first reviewer's concerns, the code review has a higher risk of lack of accuracy.

**From.** Wulf A. Kaal, *Code Review DAO* (2024), Single Points of Failure, page 15

**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 anchoring  (family: board-and-oversight-failure)

**Topics.** institutional-design

**Keywords.** anchoring, single-point-of-failure, crowd-wisdom, review-accuracy

**Related claims.**

- specializes: https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3782191-026
- specializes: https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3782191-022

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