Triage Review Findings Against the Requirement

A review returns twelve plausible findings. Fixing all twelve can add more complexity than the original feature, especially when some describe states the system cannot reach.

Treat each finding as a hypothesis. Ask which requirement it violates, which input or state exposes it, and what observation would disprove it. Reproduce consequential claims before adding a new abstraction or defensive branch.

A useful review brief is: 'Flag defects affecting correctness or a stated requirement. Give the failing path and the evidence.' That scope can reduce noise; it does not guarantee that the remaining findings are true or complete.

Record confirmed defects, rejected claims and unresolved questions separately. Multiple reviewers can repeat the same mistaken premise. The number of suggestions is a workload measure, not a measure of code quality or review success.