Who Pays the Review Cost? Triage, Fairness, and Accountability in AI-authored Pull Requests

May combine two claims.

90.8% reported at least some change in communication expectations, and 74.1% reported a moderate or significant change.

“For communication expectations, 90.8% reported at least some change and 74.1% reported a moderate or significant change (Figure 2A).”

May combine two claims.

Other themes addressed the workflow burden of generated submissions, including queue controls (30, 17.5%), risk-based routing to domain owners or stakeholders (26, 15.2%), generated-diff containment rules (24, 14.0%), and agent-workflow hygiene (16, 9.4%).

“Other themes addressed the workflow burden of generated submissions, including queue controls (30, 17.5%), riskbased routing to domain owners or stakeholders (26, 15.2%), generated-diff containment rules (24, 14.0%), and agent-workflow hygiene (16, 9.4%).”

May combine two claims.

Our respondents also asked for rules on what an AIPR must contain and how it is handled: evidence matched to the type of change (33.3%), routing risky changes to domain owners or other stakeholders (15.2%), and keeping generated diffs focused (14.0%).

“Our respondents also asked for rules on what an AIPR must contain and how it is handled: evidence matched to the type of change (33.3%), routing risky changes to domain owners or other stakeholders (15.2%), and keeping generated diffs focused (14.0%).”

May combine two claims.

Stricter AIPR handling was viewed as fair when it addressed effort asymmetry, not AI authorship alone; reviewers extended mentoring when human engagement was visible, but shifted to audit, triage, or rejection when AIPRs offloaded work onto maintainers.

“Finding 3.2: Stricter AIPR handling was viewed as fair when it addressed effort asymmetry, not AI authorship alone.Reviewers extended mentoring when human engagement was visible, but shifted to audit, triage, or rejection when AIPRs offloaded work onto maintainers.”

May combine two claims.

The largest drop occurred for behavior-preserving refactors, and the penalty was not reliably moderated by code review experience.

“The largest drop occurred for behavior-preserving refactors, and the penalty was not reliably moderated by code review experience.”

May combine two claims.

77.8% reported an increase in PRs requiring review since AIPRs became common, including 57.7% who reported a moderate or significant increase.

“Since AIPRs became common in their projects, 77.8% reported an increase in PRs requiring review, including 57.7% who reported a moderate or significant increase (Figure 2B).”

May combine two claims.

Reviewers proposed workflow-specific governance rules for AIPRs, especially AI-use admissibility policies and risk-specific evidence requirements, followed by queue controls, owner routing, generated-diff containment, and agent-workflow hygiene.

“Finding 3.1: Reviewers proposed workflow-specific governance rules for AIPRs, especially AI-use admissibility policies and risk-specific evidence requirements, followed by queue controls, owner routing, generated-diff containment, and agent-workflow hygiene.”

May combine two claims.

Reviewers perceived AIPRs as changing both communication and workload.

“Figure 2 shows that reviewers perceived AIPRs as changing both communication and workload.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Participants came from 31 countries, with the largest groups from the United States (19.7%, 47), Canada (15.5%, 37), Bangladesh (10.9%, 26), Germany (10.9%, 26), and India (7.1%, 17).

“Participants came from 31 countries, with the largest groups from the United States (19.7%, 47), Canada (15.5%, 37), Bangladesh (10.9%, 26), Germany (10.9%, 26), and India (7.1%, 17).”

May combine two claims.

78.2% (187) had reviewed at least 10 AIPRs, 62.8% (150) more than 20, and 49.4% (118) more than 40.

“Participants also reported meaningful exposure to AIPRs: 78.2% (187) had reviewed at least 10 AIPRs, 62.8% (150) more than 20, and 49.4% (118) more than 40.”

May combine two claims.

Reviewers did not reject AI use uniformly; they described the asymmetry as repaired when the submitter explained intent, validated the output, responded to feedback, and accepted post-merge responsibility.

“Reviewers did not reject AI use uniformly.They described the asymmetry as repaired when the submitter explained intent, validated the output, responded to feedback, and accepted post-merge responsibility.”

May combine two claims.

Respondents described code review as a reciprocal exchange of effort: reviewers invest more constructively when submitters visibly understand, validate, and own their changes, but shift toward audit, triage, or rejection when AIPRs appear to offload explanation, debugging, or validation onto maintainers.

“Respondents described code review as a reciprocal exchange of effort: reviewers invest more constructively when submitters visibly understand, validate, and own their changes, but shift toward audit, triage, or rejection when AIPRs appear to offload explanation, debugging, or validation onto maintainers.”

May combine two claims.

Reviewers use AIPR-specific entry and deferral gates before investing review effort, prioritizing CI/test readiness, clear intent, manageable scope, human ownership, and contributor responsiveness.

“Reviewers use AIPR-specific entry and deferral gates before investing review effort, prioritizing CI/test readiness, clear intent, manageable scope, human ownership, and contributor responsiveness.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The open-ended responses consistently discuss generated code, prompting, AI-use disclosure, human validation, and post-merge ownership.

“The open-ended responses also consistently discuss generated code, prompting, AI-use disclosure, human validation, and post-merge ownership.”

May combine two claims.

The AIPR explanation penalty showed no significant monotonic association with code-review experience overall (ρ=0.049, 95% CI [-0.08,0.17], p=.455), or within low-, medium-, or high-risk change groups.

“The respondent-level mean penalty showed no significant monotonic association with code-review experience overall (ρ = 0.049, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.17], p = .455),or within low-, medium-, or high-risk change groups.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

AI use becomes acceptable when the human submitter visibly understands, can validate and explain change rationale, and responds as an accountable participant.

“AI use becomes acceptable when the human submitter visibly understands, can validate and explain change rationale, and responds as an accountable participant.”

May combine two claims.

An active GitHub profile and a stated intent to keep contributing were rated highly or extremely influential by only 23.4% and 21.3%, respectively.

“Respondents also gave little weight to signals that say nothing about the current change: an active GitHub profile and a stated intent to keep contributing were rated highly or extremely influential by only 23.4% and 21.3%, although activity traces and profiles have been an important basis for impressions on GitHub [33].”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Most participants had substantial software development experience: 58.2% (139) reported more than seven years and 30.1% (72) at least 16 years.

“Most had substantial software development experience, with 58.2% (139) reporting more than seven years and 30.1% (72) at least 16 years.”

May combine two claims.

Most reported active validation, ownership and provenance gates, and reviewability or bandwidth controls, with adaptations broadly distributed across respondents.

“Most reported active validation, ownership and provenance gates, and reviewability or bandwidth controls, with adaptations broadly distributed across respondents.”

May combine two claims.

Reviewers are more willing to invest time, explain reasoning, and mentor when they see that the contributor invested effort, while low-effort submissions weaken this sense of reciprocity.

“Reviewers are more willing to invest time, explain reasoning, and mentor when they see that the contributor invested effort, while low-effort submissions weaken this sense of reciprocity.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing).

Tool-neutral fairness standard (n = 20, 15.5%): some respondents argued that all PRs should receive the same quality bar regardless of tool use, contributor status, or authorship.

“Tool-neutral fairness standard (n = 20, 15.5%)Some respondents argued that all PRs should receive the same quality bar regardless of tool use, contributor status, or authorship.”

May combine two claims.

Visible human effort increased patience, detailed feedback, and mentoring investment, while prompt-only AIPRs often moved reviewers into audit mode.

“Visible human effort increased patience, detailed feedback, and mentoring investment, while prompt-only AIPRs often moved reviewers into audit mode.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Code review experience was broad: 48.5% (116) reported more than seven years and 32.6% (78) reported 0-3 years.

“Code review experience was also broad, with 48.5% (116) reporting more than seven years and 32.6% (78) reporting 0-3 years.”

May combine two claims.

60.7% characterized low-effort AI-generated newcomer PRs as a minor issue or major problem, including 25.9% who described them as a major problem.

“60.7% characterized low-effort AI-generated newcomer PRs as a minor issue or major problem, including 25.9% who described them as a major problem (Figure 2C).”

May combine two claims.

The response patterns were not uniformly unfavorable toward AIPRs: substantial groups reported equivalent treatment, selected authorship-neutral criteria, and described conditions under which AIPRs should receive ordinary review.

“The response patterns were nevertheless not uniformly unfavorable toward AIPRs: substantial groups reported equivalent treatment, selected authorship-neutral criteria, and described conditions under which AIPRs should receive ordinary review.”

May combine two claims.

The final sample contains 239 respondents from 31 countries and spans a wide range of software-development and code-review experience.

“The final sample contains 239 respondents from 31 countries and spans a wide range of software-development and code-review experience.”

May combine two claims.

78.2% reported reviewing at least 10 AIPRs and 49.4% reported reviewing more than 40.

“In particular, 78.2% reported reviewing at least 10 AIPRs and 49.4% reported reviewing more than 40.”

May combine two claims.

Communication became more direct, checklist-like, or less mentoring-oriented for AIPRs, while human-authored reviews remain more collaborative and educational.

“It summarizes communication becoming more direct, checklist-like, or less mentoringoriented for AIPRs, while human-authored reviews remain more collaborative and educational.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Geographic participation is broad but uneven.

“Geographic participation is similarly broad but uneven.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The analyzed sample consists of 239 valid responses.

“Percentages are computed over the 239 valid responses.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

From 261 received records, one non-consenting response and 21 responses with more than 50% of the questionnaire unanswered were excluded, resulting in 239 responses for analysis.

“From 261 received records, one non-consenting response and 21 responses with more than 50% of the questionnaire unanswered were excluded, resulting in 239 responses for analysis.”

May combine two claims.

Conditional differences under ownership (n=48, 24.6%): Responses emphasize no change, similar standards, or positive and efficient communication when a trusted human owns the AI output and provides adequate context, tests, and rationale.

“Conditional differences under ownership (n = 48, 24.6%) Responses emphasize no change, similar standards, or positive and efficient communication when a trusted human owns the AI output and provides adequate context, tests, and rationale.”

May combine two claims.

Most respondents reported changed communication expectations, increased PR volume, and low-effort newcomer AIPRs as a review pressure problem.

“Most respondents reported changed communication expectations, increased PR volume, and low-effort newcomer AIPRs as a reviewpressure problem.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

AI coding agents are moving from local code assistance into pull-based workflows, where generated contributions must be reviewed, explained, and maintained within existing project norms.

“AI coding agents are moving from local code assistance into pull-based workflows, where generated contributions must be reviewed, explained, and maintained within existing project norms.”

• cites [15]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [16]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [17]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [18]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [19]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [20]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [21]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [22]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [23]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The paper provides an empirical characterization of the social contract of AIPR review: visible human effort, newcomer behavior, fairness triggers, and effort asymmetry shape whether reviewers provide mentoring, constructive feedback, audit-like scrutiny, or rejection.

“An empirical characterization of the social contract of AIPR review.We identify how visible human effort, newcomer behavior, fairness triggers, and effort asymmetry shape whether reviewers provide mentoring, constructive feedback, audit-like scrutiny, or rejection.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported review practices and judgments accurately reflect their actual behavior in real review contexts.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

Modern Code Review (MCR) serves both as a quality gate and a socio-technical mechanism through which software projects allocate attention, transfer knowledge, negotiate responsibility, and decide whether a contribution deserves integration.

“Modern Code Review (MCR) serves both as a quality gate and a socio-technical mechanism through which software projects allocate attention, transfer knowledge, negotiate responsibility, and decide whether a contribution deserves integration [1][2][3][4].”

• cites [1]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [2]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [3]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [4]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

These findings reframe AIPR governance around making human judgment observable before generated contributions consume scarce reviewer attention.

“These findings reframe AIPR governance around making human judgment observable before generated contributions consume scarce reviewer attention.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported review practices and judgments accurately reflect their actual behavior in real review contexts.

May combine two claims.

Large, unclear, poorly tested, or weakly explained PRs can shift effort from contributors to reviewers, increasing integration cost and delaying other work.

“Large, unclear, poorly tested, or weakly explained PRs can shift effort from contributors to reviewers, increasing integration cost and delaying other work [7,11,12].”

• cites [7]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [11]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [12]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Code review depends on an implicit social contract: contributors make changes reviewable, and reviewers invest scarce attention in return.

“Thus, code review depends on an implicit social contract: contributors make changes reviewable, and reviewers invest scarce attention in return.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Coding tools and agents such as Copilot Cloud, Claude Code, Codex Web, and related systems can generate code, revise implementations, create branches, and prepare PRs with different levels of human involvement.

“Coding tools and agents such as Copilot Cloud [15], Claude Code [16], Codex Web [17], and related systems can generate code, revise implementations, create branches, and prepare PRs with different levels of human involvement [18][19][20][21][22][23].”

• cites [15]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [16]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [17]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [18]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [19]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [20]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [21]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [22]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [23]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

In pull-based development, reviewers examine PRs, interpret intent, assess risks, request clarification, evaluate tests and supporting evidence, and decide whether the project can safely accept the change.

“In pull-based development, reviewers examine Pull Requests (PRs), interpret their intent, assess risks, request clarification, evaluate tests and supporting evidence, and decide whether the project can safely accept the change [5,6].”

• cites [5]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [6]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The paper synthesizes respondent-proposed safeguards into workflow mechanisms for making AIPRs more reviewable and accountable, including AI-use boundaries, risk-specific evidence, queue controls, owner routing, and generated-diff containment.

“Governance implications for AI-assisted review workflows.We synthesize respondent-proposed safeguards into workflow mechanisms for making AIPRs more reviewable and accountable, including AI-use boundaries, risk-specific evidence, queue controls, owner routing, and generated-diff containment.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported review practices and judgments accurately reflect their actual behavior in real review contexts.

May combine two claims.

These tools can reduce the cost of producing a patch, but they do not necessarily reduce the cost of reviewing that patch.

“These tools can reduce the cost of producing a patch, but they do not necessarily reduce the cost of reviewing that patch [19,20].”

• cites [19]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [20]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

This creates a structural tension for code review: code production becomes cheaper, but review attention remains scarce.

“This creates a structural tension for code review: code production becomes cheaper, but review attention remains scarce [2].”

• cites [2]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

A PR may be syntactically plausible, accompanied by a polished description, and supported by generated tests, while still leaving reviewers uncertain about project context, edge cases, maintainability, and post-merge ownership.

“A PR may be syntactically plausible, accompanied by a polished description, and supported by generated tests, while still leaving reviewers uncertain about project context, edge cases, maintainability, and post-merge ownership [20,24].”

• cites [20]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [24]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The study conducted an online survey and analyzed 239 valid responses from software practitioners with code review experience and exposure to AI-authored or agent-generated PRs.

“We report a mixed-method questionnaire survey of 239 practitioners from 31 countries with code-review experience and varying exposure to AIPRs.”

• Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain

  “we conducted an online survey and analyzed 239 valid responses from software practitioners with code review experience and exposure to AI-authored or agent-generated PRs.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Review quality depends on technical factors such as review coverage, change size, tests, and reviewer expertise, but also on social factors such as prior contribution history, responsiveness, project familiarity, and author-reviewer interaction.

“Prior work shows that review quality depends on technical factors such as review coverage, change size, tests, and reviewer expertise, but also on social factors such as prior contribution history, responsiveness, project familiarity, and author-reviewer interaction [6][7][8][9][10].”

• cites [6]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [7]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [8]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [9]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [10]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The questionnaire provided a consistent context by referring to PRs substantially produced using AI-based code generation systems and by distinguishing the generated contribution from the human responsible for prompting, validating, submitting, or maintaining it.

“The questionnaire nevertheless provided a consistent context by referring to PRs substantially produced using AI-based code generation systems and by distinguishing the generated contribution from the human responsible for prompting, validating, submitting, or maintaining it.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Holding the change type and CI assumption constant supports a within-respondent comparison of whether perceived authorship is associated with different willingness to proceed without additional explanation.

“Holding the change type and CI assumption constant supports a within-respondent comparison of whether perceived authorship is associated with different willingness to proceed without additional explanation.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: In the paired willingness scenarios, CI passed for both HPR and AIPR conditions.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

The resulting questionnaire is a literature-informed instrument developed and refined through iterative validation, without relying on a previously established psychometric scale.

“The resulting questionnaire is a literature-informed instrument developed and refined through iterative validation, without relying on a previously established psychometric scale.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The constructs examined in this study, including reviewability, fairness, and accountability, were operationalized through study-specific questionnaire items rather than established psychometric scales.

“The constructs examined in this study, including reviewability, fairness, and accountability, were operationalized through study-specific questionnaire items rather than established psychometric scales.”

May combine two claims.

Stricter handling is viewed as fair when it protects reviewer effort while keeping a clear path for accountable contributors.

“Stricter handling is viewed as fair when it protects reviewer effort while keeping a clear path for accountable contributors.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Open-ended questions about review-practice changes and desired team guidelines preceded the more detailed lists of entry criteria, deferral conditions, and newcomer signals.

“Importantly, open-ended questions about review-practice changes and desired team guidelines preceded the more detailed lists of entry criteria, deferral conditions, and newcomer signals.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The final dataset comprised 239 participants after excluding one response without consent and 21 substantially incomplete responses.

“We excluded one response for which consent was not provided and 21 substantially incomplete responses, resulting in a final dataset of 239 participants.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Feedback from the pilot was used to refine ambiguous wording, revise or clarify response alternatives, and finalize the questionnaire before deployment.

“Feedback from the pilot was used to refine ambiguous wording, revise or clarify response alternatives, and finalize the questionnaire before deployment.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The predefined response alternatives capture plausible reviewer considerations identified through prior research and pre-deployment validation, but they are not intended as an exhaustive taxonomy.

“The predefined response alternatives capture plausible reviewer considerations identified through prior research and pre-deployment validation, but they are not intended as an exhaustive taxonomy.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Qualitative responses were used to explain, contextualize, and occasionally qualify quantitative patterns rather than to estimate population prevalence.

“We use the qualitative responses to explain, contextualize, and occasionally qualify the quantitative patterns rather than to estimate population prevalence.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

AIPR exposure was self-reported in ordinal bands and is therefore more appropriate for characterizing the sample and exploratory comparisons than for precise exposure measurement.

“AIPR exposure was likewise self-reported in ordinal bands and is therefore more appropriate for characterizing the sample and exploratory comparisons than for precise exposure measurement.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Responses from the pilot study were not included in the reported dataset.

“Responses from the pilot study were not included in the reported dataset.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Fairness shapes contributor experience, while newcomer success depends on learning project norms, receiving guidance, and responding constructively.

“Prior work shows that fairness shapes contributor experience, while newcomer success depends on learning project norms, receiving guidance, and responding constructively [6,13,36].”

• cites [6]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [13]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [36]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The family-wise error rate within each set of related comparisons was controlled using the Holm procedure.

“We therefore controlled the family-wise error rate within each set of related comparisons using the Holm procedure [95].”

• cites [95]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The same validation evidence matters more for AIPRs because reviewers cannot infer human understanding from generated code; validation must be human-owned rather than merely generated.

“The same evidence matters more for AIPRs because reviewers cannot infer human understanding from generated code.Validation must be human-owned rather than merely generated.”

May combine two claims.

Reviewers did not reject AIPRs categorically, but required evidence, context, decomposition, and human accountability before investing substantial review effort.

“Overall, reviewers did not reject AIPRs categorically, but required evidence, context, decomposition, and human accountability before investing substantial review effort.”

May combine two claims.

This convergence supports the relevance of the predefined alternatives, but not their exhaustiveness.

“This convergence supports the relevance of the predefined alternatives, but not their exhaustiveness.”

May combine two claims.

For AI-generated changes, reviewers look for the submitter's behavior between review rounds, not just the polish of the generated code; mechanical fixes without understanding weaken the trigger.

“For AI generated changes, reviewers look for the submitter's behavior between review rounds, not just the polish of the generated code.Mechanical fixes without understanding weaken the trigger.”

May combine two claims.

Overall, AIPR triage protects reviewer effort while preserving a path for accountable AI-assisted contributions.

“Overall, AIPR triage protects reviewer effort while preserving a path for accountable AI-assisted contributions.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Afroz et al. found that communities often default to defensive strategies.

“and Afroz et al. [67] found that communities often default to defensive strategies.”

• cites [67]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The study characterizes the achieved sample and its coverage boundaries explicitly and restricts conclusions to the contexts supported by the recruited participants.

“We characterize the achieved sample and its coverage boundaries explicitly and restrict our conclusions to the contexts supported by the recruited participants [83,84].”

• cites [83]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [84]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

AIPRs reshape review practice by changing both the amount and kind of review work that maintainers must manage.

“Together, these results show that AIPRs reshape review practice by changing both the amount and kind of review work that maintainers must manage.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Open-ended responses were analyzed using codebook-based thematic coding with an explicit codebook, independent coders, and inter-rater agreement.

“We analyzed the open-ended responses using codebook-based thematic coding [96].”

• Also stated in: § 3.2.7 Qualitative Analysis · plain

  “because our analysis employed an explicit codebook, independent coders, and inter-rater agreement.”

• cites [96]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

The gap may also partly reflect social desirability in self-reported responses.

“The gap may also partly reflect social desirability in self-reported responses (Section 6).”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Two researchers independently examined a random sample of 100 responses and iteratively consolidated categories into a shared codebook using card-sorting.

“Two researchers with 10+ and 8+ years of software-development experience first independently examined a random sample of 100 responses.”

• Also stated in: § 3.2.7 Qualitative Analysis · plain

  “iteratively consolidated them into a shared codebook using a card-sorting procedure [97].”

• cites [97]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

PR evaluation depends on technical signals, contributor history, project membership, and interaction quality.

“This extends prior work showing that PR evaluation depends on technical signals, contributor history, project membership, and interaction quality [1,2,5,6].”

• cites [1]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [2]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [5]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [6]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Inter-rater agreement was measured using Cohen's κ.

“We measured inter-rater agreement on independently coded samples using Cohen's κ [98].”

• cites [98]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The questionnaire included opportunities to report considerations beyond the predefined options.

“As described in Section 3.2.2, the questionnaire included opportunities to report considerations beyond the predefined options.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Disclosure alone is too weak as an AIPR governance mechanism.

“Disclosure alone is too weak as an AIPR governance mechanism.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Disagreements were resolved through discussion, and unresolved cases were adjudicated by a third evaluator with more than 20 years of software-engineering experience.

“Disagreements were resolved through discussion and cases that remained unresolved were adjudicated by a third evaluator with more than 20 years of software-engineering experience.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

For questions comparing HPR and AIPR conditions within the same respondent, observations were treated as paired.

“For questions that directly compared HPR and AIPR conditions within the same respondent, we treated observations as paired.”

May combine two claims.

AIPRs may lower the barrier to producing a contribution, but they also raise the burden of demonstrating visible human effort before reviewers invest review time.

“AIPRs may lower the barrier to producing a contribution, but they also raise the burden of demonstrating visible human effort before reviewers invest review time.”

May combine two claims.

Self-reports can differ from actual practice and can be affected by recall and social desirability.

“Self-reports can differ from actual practice and can be affected by recall and social desirability [104,105].”

• cites [104]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [105]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The instrument was grounded in prior research and refined through expert review and pilot testing.

“As described in Section 3.2.2, the instrument was grounded in prior research and refined through expert review and pilot testing.”

May combine two claims.

Reviewers expect AIPR governance to make human stewardship visible before ordinary review; they want rules for acceptable AI use, risk-specific evidence, generated-diff containment, owner routing, and queue control.

“Answer for RQ 3 -Reviewers expect AIPR governance to make human stewardship visible before ordinary review.They want rules for acceptable AI use, risk-specific evidence, generated-diff containment, owner routing, and queue control.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The questionnaire was assessed through two stages of pre-deployment validation: independent review by two industry practitioners and two software-engineering researchers, and a pilot study with 11 software practitioners.

“We then assessed the questionnaire through two stages of pre-deployment validation.”

• Also stated in: § 3.2.2 Instrument Construction and Validation · plain

  “Second, we conducted a pilot study with 11 software practitioners with code-review experience.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Confidence in the resulting interpretations comes from convergence across structured responses and open-ended explanations.

“Confidence in the resulting interpretations comes from convergence across structured responses and open-ended explanations.”

May combine two claims.

Policy studies report mainly whether AI may be used, whether its use must be disclosed, and whether a human must be involved and accountable.

“First, policy studies report mainly whether AI may be used, whether its use must be disclosed, and whether a human must be involved and accountable [68,69].”

• cites [68]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [69]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Because recruitment combined direct email invitations with open dissemination through LinkedIn, the total number of individuals who encountered the survey is not observable.

“Since recruitment combined direct email invitations with open dissemination through LinkedIn, the total number of individuals who encountered the survey is not observable.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Productive AIPR review begins when a responsible human scopes, explains, validates, and owns the change.

“Productive AIPR review begins when a responsible human scopes, explains, validates, and owns the change.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Rules about observable behavior can be applied consistently to every contributor.

“In justice terms, this favors procedural fairness, because rules about observable behavior can be applied consistently to every contributor [35,36].”

• cites [35]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [36]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Individual reviewers may prefer to keep a path open, whereas projects facing high review volume may formalize closure practices.

“Individual reviewers may prefer to keep a path open, whereas projects facing high review volume may formalize closure practices.”

May combine two claims.

CI is necessary but insufficient because it can show that checks passed, but not whether a generated refactor preserved behavior, a performance claim is meaningful, or a security-sensitive change was understood by an accountable human.

“The concept also explains why CI is necessary but insufficient [7,27]: CI can show that checks passed, but not whether a generated refactor preserved behavior, a performance claim is meaningful, or a security-sensitive change was understood by an accountable human.”

• cites [7]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [27]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

For AIPRs, these triggers require an accountable human owner or stakeholder because the agent cannot own production, policy, or post-merge consequences.

“For AIPRs, these triggers require an accountable human owner or stakeholder because the agent cannot own production, policy, or post-merge consequences.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Human-AI trust research argues that reliance should be calibrated to task risk, uncertainty, and available evidence.

“Human-AI trust research argues that reliance should be calibrated to task risk, uncertainty, and available evidence [57,58,60].”

• cites [57]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [58]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [60]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Combining repository-derived recruitment with professional-network dissemination was intended to reduce dependence on a single sampling frame and to capture practitioners working in varied contexts.

“Combining repository-derived recruitment with professional-network dissemination was intended to reduce dependence on a single sampling frame and to capture practitioners working”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Activity traces and profiles have been an important basis for impressions on GitHub.

“although activity traces and profiles have been an important basis for impressions on GitHub [33].”

• cites [33]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

Existing research provides useful foundations, but leaves the governance problem of AIPR review underexplored.

“Existing research provides useful foundations, but leaves this governance problem underexplored.”

• cites [1]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [2]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [7]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [11]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [25]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [18]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [19]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [20]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [21]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [22]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The questionnaire provided counter-positions, including no observed problem, authorship-independent review criteria, and no special handling, and these positions were selected and also appeared in the qualitative responses.

“The questionnaire provided counter-positions, including no observed problem, authorship-independent review criteria, and no special handling, and these positions were selected and also appeared in the qualitative responses.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

After stabilizing the codebook, two coders independently applied it to the remaining responses.

“After stabilizing the codebook, the two coders independently applied it to the remaining responses.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The questionnaire was developed iteratively following established guidance for empirical survey research in software engineering.

“We developed the questionnaire iteratively following established guidance for empirical survey research in software engineering [81,85,86].”

• cites [81]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [85]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [86]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Reviewability debt is the cost transferred to reviewers when a PR appears complete but leaves intent, scope, validation, or ownership unresolved.

“We term the remaining gap reviewability debt: the cost transferred to reviewers when a PR appears complete but leaves intent, scope, validation, or ownership unresolved [8,12].”

• cites [8]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [12]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Reviewers do not treat AI authorship as unacceptable, but they resist broad, weakly explained, or unvalidated generated changes that shift preparation work to maintainers.

“Reviewers do not treat AI authorship as unacceptable, but they resist broad, weakly explained, or unvalidated generated changes that shift preparation work to maintainers.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

This explains why reviewers can be open to AIPRs while still requiring stronger intake signals before sustained review begins.

“This explains why reviewers can be open to AIPRs while still requiring stronger intake signals before sustained review begins.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Some item wording intentionally made particular review situations salient.

“Some item wording intentionally made particular review situations salient.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The survey design, recruitment, and analysis followed established guidance for empirical survey research in software engineering and the ACM SIGSOFT Empirical Standards.

“The survey design, recruitment, and analysis followed established guidance for empirical survey research in software engineering [81,82] and the ACM SIGSOFT Empirical Standards [83].”

• cites [81]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [82]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [83]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Practitioners who chose to participate may differ from non-participants in AI exposure, workload, organizational policy, or strength of opinion.

“Practitioners who chose to participate may differ from non-participants in AI exposure, workload, organizational policy, or strength of opinion.”

May combine two claims.

In the willingness block, the same change types and the same assumption that CI passes were used for both HPRs and AIPRs, reducing between-person variation and holding important aspects of the scenario constant.

“In the willingness block, the same change types and the same assumption that CI passes were used for both HPRs and AIPRs, reducing between-person variation and holding important aspects of the scenario constant.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The broader questionnaire context may also have influenced later responses; because the questionnaire followed a fixed order, earlier items may have made certain considerations more salient when respondents answered subsequent questions.

“The broader questionnaire context may also have influenced later responses.Because the questionnaire followed a fixed order, earlier items may have made certain considerations more salient when respondents answered subsequent questions.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Some analyses, particularly those involving AIPR exposure, software-development experience, and code-review experience, are exploratory.

“Some analyses, particularly those involving AIPR exposure, software-development experience, and codereview experience, are exploratory.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

The situations respondents recalled may differ in generated code quality, change risk, repository maturity, subsystem familiarity, contributor history, organizational AI policy, and prior experience with AI tools.

“The situations respondents recalled may differ in generated code quality, change risk, repository maturity, subsystem familiarity, contributor history, organizational AI policy, and prior experience with AI tools.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

We report response distributions and direction-of-change information so that interpretation does not depend on statistical significance alone.

“We additionally report response distributions and direction-of-change information so that interpretation does not depend on statistical significance alone.”

May combine two claims.

Cohen's κ indicated strong agreement across the independently coded items, supporting the consistency of category assignment while recognizing that qualitative coding remains interpretive.

“Cohen's κ indicated strong agreement across the independently coded items, supporting the consistency of category assignment while recognizing that qualitative coding remains interpretive.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

We use the qualitative findings to explain, contextualize, and qualify the quantitative patterns, including identifying counterexamples, rather than to claim theoretical saturation or estimate population prevalence.

“We therefore use the qualitative findings to explain, contextualize, and qualify the quantitative patterns, including identifying counterexamples, rather than to claim theoretical saturation or estimate population prevalence.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Informed consent was obtained from all participants before participation in the study.

“Informed consent was obtained from all participants before participation in the study.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Optional and open-ended questions were analyzed using their item-specific denominators, and missing responses were not interpreted as absence of the corresponding view.

“Optional and open-ended questions were analyzed using their item-specific denominators, and missing responses were not interpreted as absence of the corresponding view.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

Respondents with lower exposure may reflect emerging expectations rather than well-established review routines.

“Respondents with lower exposure may reflect emerging expectations rather than well-established review routines.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

This study received ethics approval from the University of Saskatchewan Behavioural Research Ethics Board (Approval No. BEH#6412) prior to data collection.

“This study received ethics approval from the University of Saskatchewan Behavioural Research Ethics Board (Approval No. BEH#6412) prior to data collection.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Disagreements were resolved through discussion, with unresolved cases adjudicated by a third evaluator.

“Disagreements were resolved through discussion, with unresolved cases adjudicated by a third evaluator.”

May combine two claims.

Repository-based recruitment favors practitioners visible in mature open-source projects and those with publicly available contact information, whereas private repositories, smaller projects, regulated organizations, non-GitHub ecosystems, and organizations with different review processes may be less represented.

“Repository-based recruitment favors practitioners visible in mature open-source projects and those with publicly available contact information, whereas private repositories, smaller projects, regulated organizations, non-GitHub ecosystems, and organizations with different review processes may be less represented.”

May combine two claims.

The questionnaire required substantive engagement with several open-ended questions, participation was not incentivized, and the open-ended responses were subsequently examined during qualitative coding.

“However, the questionnaire required substantive engagement with several open-ended questions, participation was not incentivized, and the open-ended responses were subsequently examined during qualitative coding.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

We mitigate this concern by asking about concrete review situations and practices, retaining countervailing and tool-neutral responses, and using open-ended explanations to contextualize structured answers.

“We mitigate this concern by asking about concrete review situations and practices, retaining countervailing and tool-neutral responses, and using open-ended explanations to contextualize structured answers.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The replication package and supplementary materials are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21053770.

“Our replication package and supplementary materials can be found in the following repository: https://doi. org/10.5281/zenodo.21053770”

May combine two claims.

The HPR condition preceded the corresponding AIPR condition and the order was not randomized.

“However, the HPR condition preceded the corresponding AIPR condition and the order was not randomized.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Open-ended survey responses offer less opportunity for probing and clarification than interviews.

“Open-ended survey responses also offer less opportunity for probing and clarification than interviews.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Professional-network dissemination broadens the sampling frame but also introduces self-selection.

“Professional-network dissemination broadens the sampling frame but also introduces self-selection.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Selection frequencies from multiple-selection questions are not treated as a complete ranking of reviewer concerns, especially where respondents were limited to a fixed number of choices.

“Similarly, selection frequencies from multiple-selection questions are not treated as a complete ranking of reviewer concerns, especially where respondents were limited to a fixed number of choices.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The wording placed somewhat greater emphasis on the need for human explanation in the AIPR condition.

“The wording also placed somewhat greater emphasis on the need for human explanation in the AIPR condition.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

We address self-selection through transparent reporting of the recruitment process and achieved sample rather than weighting against an unknown population distribution.

“We address this through transparent reporting of the recruitment process and achieved sample rather than weighting against an unknown population distribution.”

May combine two claims.

Recruitment combined direct email invitations with open dissemination through LinkedIn, so the number of individuals who encountered the survey cannot be determined reliably and anonymous responses cannot be assigned to recruitment channels.

“Recruitment combined direct email invitations with open dissemination through LinkedIn, so the number of individuals who encountered the survey cannot be determined reliably and anonymous responses cannot be assigned to recruitment channels.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The quantitative analyses were matched to the measurement scale and dependency structure of the questionnaire.

“The quantitative analyses were matched to the measurement scale and dependency structure of the questionnaire.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

We capture the resulting burden through the concept of reviewability debt: work left to reviewers when rationale, validation, context, or ownership remain unresolved.

“We capture the resulting burden through the concept of reviewability debt: work left to reviewers when rationale, validation, context, or ownership remain unresolved.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Reviewability debt is an interpretive concept synthesized from recurring patterns in the responses rather than a directly measured quantity of reviewer time, downstream defects, or maintenance cost.

“Similarly, reviewability debt is an interpretive concept synthesized from recurring patterns in the responses rather than a directly measured quantity of reviewer time, downstream defects, or maintenance cost.”

May combine two claims.

Participants were recruited from repositories with known agent-authored PR activity, from mature Apache and GitHub projects selected independently of known AIPR activity, and through LinkedIn to broaden participation beyond repository-derived contacts.

“Participants were recruited from repositories with known agent-authored PR activity, from mature Apache and GitHub projects selected independently of known AIPR activity, and through LinkedIn to broaden participation beyond repository-derived contacts.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Coding agents, provenance mechanisms, contribution policies, and reviewer familiarity with generated code are evolving rapidly.

“Coding agents, provenance mechanisms, contribution policies, and reviewer familiarity with generated code are evolving rapidly.”

May combine two claims.

The recruitment strategy is purposive and non-probabilistic.

“The recruitment strategy is nevertheless purposive and non-probabilistic.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

This shifts the design problem from detecting AI-generated code toward making stewardship visible at review intake.

“This shifts the design problem from detecting AI-generated code toward making stewardship visible at review intake.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Responses that were too brief, unclear, or otherwise not interpretable were not assigned substantive themes.

“Responses that were too brief, unclear, or otherwise not interpretable were not assigned substantive themes.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The study description made the comparison between human- and AI-authored review explicit, which may create demand characteristics if respondents infer the kinds of differences the researchers expect.

“The study description also made the comparison between human-and AI-authored review explicit.Such transparency was necessary for informed participation, but it may create demand characteristics if respondents infer the kinds of differences the researchers expect [107].”

• cites [107]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

Repeated ordinal ratings were analyzed using methods appropriate for within-respondent comparisons, and Holm correction was applied within families of related tests.

“Repeated ordinal ratings were analyzed using methods appropriate for within-respondent comparisons, and Holm correction was applied within families of related tests.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

As coding agents improve, the sustainability of AI-assisted development will depend increasingly on how well software workflows connect generated code to observable human responsibility.

“As coding agents improve, the sustainability of AI-assisted development will depend increasingly on how well software workflows connect generated code to observable human responsibility.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

As AI-generated contributions become easier to produce, code review increasingly depends on whether the surrounding human judgment is visible enough for reviewers to act on.

“As AI-generated contributions become easier to produce, code review increasingly depends on whether the surrounding human judgment is visible enough for reviewers to act on.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

For the qualitative analysis, two coders independently applied a shared codebook with multi-label coding permitted.

“For the qualitative analysis, two coders independently applied a shared codebook with multi-label coding permitted.”

May combine two claims.

The study is cross-sectional and observational and was designed to characterize reviewer judgments rather than establish a causal effect of AI authorship on review behavior.

“The study is cross-sectional and observational and was designed to characterize reviewer judgments rather than establish a causal effect of AI authorship on review behavior.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

Exact selection rates may therefore change as tools and governance practices mature.

“Exact selection rates may therefore change as tools and governance practices mature.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Within-respondent ordinal comparisons were analyzed using paired non-parametric procedures and accompanied by effect-size measures.

“Within-respondent ordinal comparisons were analyzed using paired non-parametric procedures and accompanied by effect-size measures.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Smaller subgroups and sparse categories reduce statistical precision, so non-significant results are not interpreted as evidence that no association exists.

“Smaller subgroups and sparse categories reduce statistical precision, so non-significant results are not interpreted as evidence that no association exists.”