On "Quoting Addy Osmani, Morgan Westlee Lunt, and Qing Wang"

The premise that code review is fundamentally about risk mitigation rather than human validation is correct, and it reframes how teams should actually structure review gates. Instead of treating review as a checkbox that proves a human looked at something, you should map specific failure modes to specific checks—whether that's automated linting, a domain expert's eye, or just a peer's sanity check—and route accordingly. Teams obsessing over review metrics (approval counts, turnaround time) while leaving obvious bugs to slip through are optimizing for the wrong thing. This means rethinking what actually needs human review versus what's theater, which most teams haven't done.