Hierarchical review produces an anchoring failure: the first reviewer in the hierarchy gets the highest priority and follow-on reviewers merely add minor upgrades, so adding reviewers does not add the independent scrutiny that would raise code quality.
Source quote, verbatim
in the legacy review process, the first reviewer within the hierarchical structure of the code review process often gets the highest priority and is often merely followed with minor upgrades by follow-on reviewers.
From
Wulf A. Kaal, AI Learning - Decentralized Governance to Optimize Human Output Datasets for AI Learning (2024), Market for Code Reviews, p. 34 https://ssrn.com/abstract=4755632 · source PDF
Cite as
Wulf A. Kaal, AI Learning - Decentralized Governance to Optimize Human Output Datasets for AI Learning (2024). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4755632
Holds when
applies to legacy hierarchical code review processes
extendskaal:claim:4734750-008 In hierarchical review, the first reviewer's output receives the highest priority and later reviewers add only...
Verify
The quote above is an exact substring of the source PDF, whose sha256 is 972ccebf0c06ac1767a9e443bb95942b7670e806a63c25ee817c368a64c8eca8. Extraction method: pdf-text-layer. Attestation record: colloquium/attestations/a8fbfbd281e14638...json Verify the binding yourself: curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/4755632-018.md | sha256sum