# kaal:claim:4755632-022

**Claim.** Without crowd control the reviewer's views and the code author's intent are at odds, so a reviewer imposing their own logic can force repeated rewrites of code whose core functionality is already sound; a code review should instead focus on functionality and on keeping mistaken, badly constructed, and dangerous code out.

**Type.** normative  **Support.** argued

**Holds when.**

- applies to legacy code review processes lacking crowd control

**Source quote.**

> Instead, a code review should focus on the functionality of the code and on keeping mistaken, badly constructed, and dangerous code out.

**From.** Wulf A. Kaal, *AI Learning - Decentralized Governance to Optimize Human Output Datasets for AI Learning* (2024), Single Points of Failure, page 35

**Cite as.** Wulf A. Kaal, AI Learning - Decentralized Governance to Optimize Human Output Datasets for AI Learning (2024). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4755632

**Verify.** sha256 of source PDF `972ccebf0c06ac1767a9e443bb95942b7670e806a63c25ee817c368a64c8eca8` at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wulfkaal/Academic-Papers/main/papers/pdf/Kaal%20-%202024%20-%20AI%20Learning%20-%20Decentralized%20Governance%20to%20Optimize%20Human%20Output%20Datasets%20for%20AI%20Learning.pdf

**Failure mode.** Reviewer Logic Imposition  (family: board-and-oversight-failure)

**Topics.** open-source-and-code

**Keywords.** code-review, reviewer-discretion, review-scope, crowd-control

**Related claims.**

- extends: https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3995709-017
- extends: https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/4734750-012

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