# Reviewer discretion

`kaal:entity:reviewer-discretion`

**Status.** derived

This node is assembled mechanically from the 3 claims that carry the concept tag `reviewer-discretion`. It is a roster of what the corpus says under this term. It is **not** an adjudicated definition: no single statement here has been ruled canonical, and no first-appearance call has been made. Read the claims and judge for yourself.

## Every claim under this term

3 claims across 3 works, 2021 to 2024.

**2021**

- [3995709-016](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/3995709-016) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- Without crowd controls, the reviewer's views and the author's intent are at odds and the reviewer can impose their own logic, forcing the author to rewrite functionally sound code repeatedly, which is highly time consuming and inefficient.
  > Because the code reviewer may wish to impose their own 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. This can be highly time consuming and inefficient.
  Wulf A. Kaal, How DAOs Optimize Open-Source Code Reviews and Create Open-Source Standards (2021). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3995709

**2024**

- [4734750-011](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/4734750-011) [failure/argued] *(failure mode)* -- 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.
  > 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.
  Wulf A. Kaal, Code Review DAO (2024). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4734750
- [4755632-022](https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/4755632-022) [normative/argued] *(failure mode)* -- 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.
  > Instead, a code review should focus on the functionality of the code and on keeping mistaken, badly constructed, and dangerous code out.
  Wulf A. Kaal, AI Learning - Decentralized Governance to Optimize Human Output Datasets for AI Learning (2024). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4755632

## Verify

Every claim above resolves to a record carrying a verbatim source quote, the sha256 of the source PDF, and a preformatted citation. Nothing here asks to be taken on trust.

    curl -s https://wulfkaal.github.io/entities/reviewer-discretion.md | sha256sum

**Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of this entity node. Its sha256 is the content hash.