Plausible Is Not Enough: Trust and Evidence in AI-Authored Pull Request Review

The quote only partly states this claim.

Among 225 respondents, 158 (70.2%) described AIPR approval as harder than HPR approval.

“Among 225 respondents, 158 (70.2%) described AIPR approval as harder.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The HPR and AIPR conditions differ primarily in perceived authorship, so observed differences can be attributed to authorship.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The survey items validly measure the intended constructs of trust, evidence sufficiency, uncertainty handling, and verification strategies.

May combine two claims.

Respondents selected fewer cues for AIPRs than for HPRs (mean 3.76 versus 4.33, Wilcoxon p < .001, r_rb = -0.47), with 48.2% selecting fewer cues for AIPRs and 22.1% selecting more.

“Respondents also selected fewer cues for AIPRs than for HPRs (mean 3.76 versus 4.33, Wilcoxon p < .001,r rb = -0.47),with 48.2% selecting fewer cues for AIPRs and 22.1% selecting more”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The HPR and AIPR conditions differ primarily in perceived authorship, so observed differences can be attributed to authorship.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The survey items validly measure the intended constructs of trust, evidence sufficiency, uncertainty handling, and verification strategies.

May combine two claims.

Participants 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.

“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.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.

May combine two claims.

Reasoning about non-trivial logic remained central in both conditions, with no meaningful change in mean rank.

“Reasoning about non-trivial logic remained central in both conditions, with no meaningful change in mean rank.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The HPR and AIPR conditions differ primarily in perceived authorship, so observed differences can be attributed to authorship.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The survey items validly measure the intended constructs of trust, evidence sufficiency, uncertainty handling, and verification strategies.

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

The survey received 261 response records during the two-month data-collection period.

“The survey received 261 response records during the two-month data-collection period.”

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

The top five countries accounted for 64.0% of responses, while the top 10 accounted for 83.7%.

“The top ve countries accounted for 64.0% of responses, while the top 10 accounted for 83.7%”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.

May combine two claims.

For HPRs, the most common response was to request targeted evidence before approval (44.7%), followed by approving while documenting the uncertainty (19.8%) and blocking until resolution (19.4%).

“For HPRs, the most common response was to request targeted evidence before approval (44.7%), followed by approving while documenting the uncertainty (19.8%) and blocking until resolution (19.4%).”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The HPR and AIPR conditions differ primarily in perceived authorship, so observed differences can be attributed to authorship.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The survey items validly measure the intended constructs of trust, evidence sufficiency, uncertainty handling, and verification strategies.

May combine two claims.

For AIPRs, reasoning through critical cases became dominant (55.2%), while reliance on tests dropped to 23.8%.

“For AIPRs, this ordering reversed: reasoning through critical cases became dominant (55.2%), while reliance on tests dropped to 23.8%.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The HPR and AIPR conditions differ primarily in perceived authorship, so observed differences can be attributed to authorship.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The survey items validly measure the intended constructs of trust, evidence sufficiency, uncertainty handling, and verification strategies.

May combine two claims.

For AIPRs, blocking became dominant (43.9%), while approval with documented uncertainty dropped to 5.5% and targeted evidence requests to 28.7%.

“For AIPRs, blocking became dominant (43.9%), while approval with documented uncertainty dropped to 5.5% and targeted evidence requests to 28.7%.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The HPR and AIPR conditions differ primarily in perceived authorship, so observed differences can be attributed to authorship.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The survey items validly measure the intended constructs of trust, evidence sufficiency, uncertainty handling, and verification strategies.

May combine two claims.

For AIPRs, the most selected condition-specific cue is human prompter's expertise (57.5%), while AI tool reputation is selected by 32.3%.

“For AIPRs, the most selected condition-specic cue is human prompter's expertise (57.5%), while AI tool reputation is selected by 32.3%.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The HPR and AIPR conditions differ primarily in perceived authorship, so observed differences can be attributed to authorship.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The survey items validly measure the intended constructs of trust, evidence sufficiency, uncertainty handling, and verification strategies.

May combine two claims.

Among responses that could be ordered by review-control strictness, 41.4% became stricter for AIPRs, 11.7% became less strict, and 46.8% remained unchanged (sign test p < .001, Wilcoxon p < .001, r_rb = 0.63).

“Among responses that could be ordered by review-control strictness, 41.4% became stricter for AIPRs, 11.7% became less strict, and 46.8% remained unchanged (sign test p < .001,Wilcoxon p < .001,r rb = 0.63).”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The HPR and AIPR conditions differ primarily in perceived authorship, so observed differences can be attributed to authorship.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The survey items validly measure the intended constructs of trust, evidence sufficiency, uncertainty handling, and verification strategies.

May combine two claims.

AI authorship does not simply increase the number of verification strategies; the average number of active strategies is similar for HPRs and AIPRs (3.03 vs. 2.90, Wilcoxon p = .155, r_rb = -0.14).

“Figure 6 shows that AI authorship does not simply increase the number of verication strategies.The average number of active strategies is similar for HPRs and AIPRs (3.03 vs. 2.90, Wilcoxon p = .155,r rb = -0.14).”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The HPR and AIPR conditions differ primarily in perceived authorship, so observed differences can be attributed to authorship.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The survey items validly measure the intended constructs of trust, evidence sufficiency, uncertainty handling, and verification strategies.

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

Most participants had substantial software development experience, with 58.2% (139) reporting 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.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.

May combine two claims.

For HPRs, the most common approval criterion was tests covering the risky behavior (41.0%), followed by the reviewer being able to reason through all critical cases (28.5%).

“For HPRs, the most common approval criterion was tests covering the risky behavior (41.0%), followed by the reviewer being able to reason through all critical cases (28.5%).”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The HPR and AIPR conditions differ primarily in perceived authorship, so observed differences can be attributed to authorship.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The survey items validly measure the intended constructs of trust, evidence sufficiency, uncertainty handling, and verification strategies.

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

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

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.

May combine two claims.

Reviewers identify specific weaknesses in the evidentiary basis of AIPRs: generated code can appear plausible while hiding subtle errors, miss project-specific constraints, obscure intent and human understanding, and provide tests or explanations that themselves require verification.

“Reviewers identify specic weaknesses in the evidentiary basis of AIPRs: generated code can appear plausible while hiding subtle errors, miss project-specic constraints, obscure intent and human understanding, and provide tests or explanations that themselves require verication.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The HPR and AIPR conditions differ primarily in perceived authorship, so observed differences can be attributed to authorship.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The survey items validly measure the intended constructs of trust, evidence sufficiency, uncertainty handling, and verification strategies.

May combine two claims.

A Wilcoxon signed-rank test confirmed significantly lower initial trust for AIPRs (p < .001), with a large matched-pairs rank-biserial effect (r_rb = -0.77, 95% CI [-0.86, -0.68]).

“A Wilcoxon signed-rank test conrmed signicantly lower initial trust for AIPRs (p < .001),with a large matched-pairs rank-biserial eect (r rb = -0.77,95% CI [-0.86, -0.68]).”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The HPR and AIPR conditions differ primarily in perceived authorship, so observed differences can be attributed to authorship.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The survey items validly measure the intended constructs of trust, evidence sufficiency, uncertainty handling, and verification strategies.

May combine two claims.

At the paired level, 64.9% rated AIPRs lower than HPRs, 24.3% reported the same trust level, and 10.9% reported higher trust for AIPRs.

“At the paired level, 64.9% rated AIPRs lower than HPRs, 24.3% reported the same trust level, and 10.9% reported higher trust for AIPRs.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The HPR and AIPR conditions differ primarily in perceived authorship, so observed differences can be attributed to authorship.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The survey items validly measure the intended constructs of trust, evidence sufficiency, uncertainty handling, and verification strategies.

May combine two claims.

The differences were selective, as respondents changed how they judged assurance and accountability while keeping the technical checks they apply to human-authored changes.

“However, the dierences were selective, as respondents changed how they judged assurance and accountability while keeping the technical checks they apply to human-authored changes.”

May combine two claims.

Compared with HPRs, AIPRs were less often handled by approving with documented uncertainty (-14.3 pp, Holm-adjusted p < .001) or requesting targeted evidence (-16.0 pp, p < .001), and more often blocked until resolution (+24.5 pp, p < .001).

“Compared with HPRs, AIPRs were less often handled by approving with documented uncertainty (-14.3 pp, Holm-adjusted p < .001) or requesting targeted evidence (-16.0 pp, p < .001),and more often blocked until resolution (+24.5 pp, p < .001).”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The HPR and AIPR conditions differ primarily in perceived authorship, so observed differences can be attributed to authorship.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The survey items validly measure the intended constructs of trust, evidence sufficiency, uncertainty handling, and verification strategies.

May combine two claims.

The trust shortcut decreased: 52.6% select trusting the author's reasoning for HPRs, whereas only 15.0% select trusting AI output if tests pass for AIPRs (-37.6 pp, Holm-adjusted p < .001).

“The largest decrease concerns the trust shortcut: 52.6% select trusting the author's reasoning for HPRs, whereas only 15.0% select trusting AI output if tests pass for AIPRs (-37.6 pp, Holm-adjusted p < .001).”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The HPR and AIPR conditions differ primarily in perceived authorship, so observed differences can be attributed to authorship.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The survey items validly measure the intended constructs of trust, evidence sufficiency, uncertainty handling, and verification strategies.

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).”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.

May combine two claims.

The pattern of smaller trust gap with more AIPR exposure was not significant across exposure groups in a Kruskal-Wallis comparison (p = .32) and was only marginal in logistic regression predicting whether a respondent rated AIPRs lower than HPRs (OR = 0.85, p = .078).

“However, this pattern was not signicant across exposure groups in a Kruskal-Wallis comparison (p = .32)and was only marginal in logistic regression predicting whether a respondent rated AIPRs lower than HPRs (OR = 0.85, p = .078).”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The HPR and AIPR conditions differ primarily in perceived authorship, so observed differences can be attributed to authorship.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The survey items validly measure the intended constructs of trust, evidence sufficiency, uncertainty handling, and verification strategies.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

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.

In the survey of 239 practitioners, respondents' HPR trust cues centered on author track record, experience, and subsystem familiarity, whereas their AIPR trust cues shifted toward human prompter expertise, bounded change size, and accountable oversight, and were fewer in number.

“Finding 1 . 2 : Respondents' HPR trust cues centered on author track record, experience, and subsystem familiarity, whereas their AIPR trust cues shifted toward human prompter expertise, bounded change size, and accountable oversight, and were fewer in number.”

May combine two claims.

For merge-candidate PRs (N=239), the mean rank of 'Coordinating with others' was 6.12 for HPRs and 5.74 for AIPRs, a difference of -0.38 (p ≈ 10^-6, |r_rb| = 0.45).

“Coordinating with others | 6.12 | 5.74 | -0.38 | ≈ 10 -6 | 0.45”

May combine two claims.

Before approval, they placed greater importance on independent reasoning than on tests or explanations, were more likely to withhold approval when uncertainty remained, and valued clear ownership statements and code provenance.

“Before approval, they placed greater importance on independent reasoning than on tests or explanations, were more likely to withhold approval when uncertainty remained, and valued clear ownership statements and code provenance.”

May combine two claims.

For merge-candidate PRs (N=239), the mean rank of 'Design and maintainability trade-offs' was 4.75 for HPRs and 5.30 for AIPRs, a difference of +0.55 (p ≈ 10^-8, |r_rb| = 0.45).

“Design and maintainability trade-os | 4.75 | 5.30 | +0.55 | ≈ 10 -8 | 0.45”

May combine two claims.

Three results motivate this interpretation: ownership uncertainty became a more frequent reason to pause review, explicit ownership statements and generated-versus-manual summaries gained priority as up-front artifacts, and blocking approval became the most common response to unresolved uncertainty.

“Three results motivate this interpretation: ownership uncertainty became a more frequent reason to pause review (Finding 3.3), explicit ownership statements and generated-versus-manual summaries gained priority as up-front artifacts (Finding 3.4), and blocking approval became the most common response to unresolved uncertainty (Finding 2.2).”

May combine two claims.

For merge-candidate PRs (N=239), the mean rank of 'Understanding intent from PR description' was 2.98 for HPRs and 4.01 for AIPRs, a difference of +1.03 (p < 10^-14, |r_rb| = 0.62).

“Understanding intent from PR description | 2.98 | 4.01 | +1.03 | < 10 -14 | 0.62”

May combine two claims.

For merge-candidate PRs (N=239), the mean rank of 'Checking tests for risky behavior' was 3.87 for HPRs and 3.38 for AIPRs, a difference of -0.49 (p ≈ 10^-7, |r_rb| = 0.44).

“Checking tests for risky behavior | 3.87 | 3.38 | -0.49 | ≈ 10 -7 | 0.44”

May combine two claims.

Most respondents reported lower initial trust in AIPRs and placed greater emphasis on the human prompter's expertise and change size than on conventional authorship cues.

“Most respondents reported lower initial trust in AIPRs and placed greater emphasis on the human prompter's expertise and change size than on conventional authorship cues.”

May combine two claims.

For merge-candidate PRs (N=239), the mean rank of 'Reasoning about non-trivial logic' was 3.18 for HPRs and 3.18 for AIPRs, a difference of 0.00 (p = .97, |r_rb| = 0.00).

“Reasoning about non-trivial logic | 3.18 | 3.18 | 0.00 | .97 | 0.00”

May combine two claims.

For merge-candidate PRs (N=239), the mean rank of 'Running code locally or exploratory validation' was 5.98 for HPRs and 4.91 for AIPRs, a difference of -1.08 (p < 10^-16, |r_rb| = 0.65).

“Running code locally or exploratory validation | 5.98 | 4.91 | -1.08 | < 10 -16 | 0.65”

May combine two claims.

HPR open-ended responses were sparse (14, 5.9%), while AIPR responses were more than twice as frequent (31, 13.0%).

“HPR responses were sparse (14, 5.9%), while AIPR responses were more than twice as frequent (31, 13.0%)”

May combine two claims.

For merge-candidate PRs (N=239), the mean rank of 'Inspecting surrounding context' was 3.86 for HPRs and 3.42 for AIPRs, a difference of -0.44 (p ≈ 10^-8, |r_rb| = 0.43).

“Inspecting surrounding context | 3.86 | 3.42 | -0.44 | ≈ 10 -8 | 0.43”

May combine two claims.

Most respondents reported substantial AIPR review experience, with 78.2% having reviewed at least 10 AIPRs and 49.4% more than 40.

“Most respondents also reported substantial AIPR review experience, with 78.2% having reviewed at least 10 AIPRs and 49.4% more than 40”

May combine two claims.

For merge-candidate PRs (N=239), the mean rank of 'Writing review feedback' was 5.25 for HPRs and 6.06 for AIPRs, a difference of +0.81 (p ≈ 10^-13, |r_rb| = 0.58).

“Writing review feedback | 5.25 | 6.06 | +0.81 | ≈ 10 -13 | 0.58”

May combine two claims.

Ownership uncertainty doubled as a stop-review trigger, increasing from 14.6% for HPRs to 29.3% for AIPRs.

“Ownership uncertainty doubled as a stop-review trigger, increasing from 14.6% for HPRs to 29.3% for AIPRs (+14.6 pp, Holm-adjusted McNemar p < .001).”

May combine two claims.

A clear statement of intent and constraints remained the most common AIPR selection, but dropped to 47.7%.

“It remained the most common AIPR selection, but dropped to 47.7% (-22.6 pp, Holm-adjusted p < .001).”

May combine two claims.

Developers use code-generating models to accelerate implementation and explore alternatives, but still must inspect, debug, and adapt generated code before relying on it.

“Studies of AI-assisted programming show that developers use code-generating models to accelerate implementation and explore alternatives, but still must inspect, debug, and adapt generated code before relying on it [18][19][20].”

• 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.

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

Code review helps detect defects, technical debt, and code smells.

“Prior work shows that code review helps detect defects, technical debt, and code smells [1][2][3][4][5]”

• 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.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Even for HPRs, review is a judgment process under incomplete information, limited time, and varying trust.

“Thus, even for Human-authored PRs (HPRs), review is not mechanical inspection, but a judgment process under incomplete information, limited time, and varying trust.”

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

AIPR review is an evidence-ownership problem: reviewers need a defensible chain from generated change to validated behavior and maintainable ownership.

“It is an evidence-ownership problem: reviewers need a defensible chain from generated change to validated behavior and maintainable ownership.”

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

Code review supports knowledge sharing, project conventions, and developer coordination.

“while supporting knowledge sharing, project conventions, and developer coordination [6][7][8][9].”

• 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.

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

Reviewers can use subsystem familiarity to calibrate trust.

“subsystem familiarity [28]”

• cites [28]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 target population comprises software practitioners with code-review experience in development settings where AI-authored or agent-generated pull requests are relevant.

“Our target population comprises software practitioners with code-review experience in development settings where AI-authored or agent-generated pull requests are relevant.”

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

The rates for multiple-selection items are treated as endorsement of the response alternatives presented in the questionnaire rather than as an exhaustive ranking of all possible reviewer considerations.

“We treat these rates as endorsement of the response alternatives presented in the questionnaire rather than as an exhaustive ranking of all possible reviewer considerations.”

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

Option-level results are interpreted as respondents' endorsement of the alternatives presented in the questionnaire, while open-ended responses provide complementary evidence for considerations outside the predefined response space.

“we interpret option-level results as respondents' endorsement of the alternatives presented in the questionnaire, while the open-ended responses provide a complementary source of evidence for considerations outside the predened response space.”

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

Every paired item allowed respondents to report no difference, so a stated contrast required an active choice.

“Second, every paired item allowed respondents to report no dierence, either by giving the same answer in both conditions or by selecting explicit options such as no conscious calibration, about the same evidence requirement, usually continue reviewing, or none of these matter much, so a stated contrast required an active choice.”

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

Policy adoption has been associated with greater AI-use disclosure and more extensive review interactions.

“Policy adoption has also been associated with greater AI-use disclosure and more extensive review interactions [57].”

• cites [57]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.

Review latency is influenced by author-reviewer relationships, prior interactions, social connections, and workload.

“Review latency is inuenced by author-reviewer relationships, prior interactions, social connections, and workload [27,41,42].”

• cites [27]Not matched

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

• cites [41]Not matched

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

• cites [42]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 multi-label coding was permitted, theme percentages are not mutually exclusive.

“Because multi-label coding was permitted, theme percentages are not mutually exclusive.”

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

Repository evidence associates AI-generated contributions with increased review pressure and defensive practices in open-source projects.

“Repository evidence further associates AI-generated contributions with increased review pressure and defensive practices in open-source projects [53].”

• cites [53]Not matched

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

May combine two claims.

In AIPR review, over-reliance may lead reviewers to approve plausible code without adequate scrutiny, while under-reliance may lead them to reject useful contributions despite sufficient evidence.

“In AIPR review, over-reliance may lead reviewers to approve plausible code without adequate scrutiny, while under-reliance may lead them to reject useful contributions despite sucient evidence [33,34].”

• cites [33]Not matched

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

• cites [34]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.

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.

Because each respondent ranked all eight review activities, ranks are interpreted as relative time priorities.

“Similarly, because each respondent ranked all eight review activities, we interpret ranks as relative time priorities.”

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

Closed-ended items used item-specific response options rather than agree-disagree statements, which are more susceptible to acquiescence.

“First, closed-ended items used item-specic response options, such as an ordered trust scale from very low to very high or a list of concrete review actions, rather than agree-disagree statements, which are more susceptible to acquiescence [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.

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

Holm's sequential procedure provides strong control of the family-wise error rate while being less conservative than the standard Bonferroni correction.

“Holm's sequential procedure provides strong control of the family-wise error rate while being less conservative than the standard Bonferroni correction.”

• cites [96]Not matched

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

May combine two claims.

Respondents described a change not only in the level of trust, but also in the basis on which trust is formed.

“Respondents described a change not only in the level of trust, but also in the basis on which trust is formed.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The HPR and AIPR conditions differ primarily in perceived authorship, so observed differences can be attributed to authorship.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The survey items validly measure the intended constructs of trust, evidence sufficiency, uncertainty handling, and verification strategies.

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

Identical and parallel options are compared with paired tests, and options that apply to only one condition are reported descriptively.

“Identical and parallel options are compared with paired tests, and options that apply to only one condition, such as the author's track record or the AI tool's reputation, are reported descriptively (Section 3.2.6).”

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

Statistical significance was interpreted together with effect sizes and response distributions rather than relying on p-values alone.

“We interpret statistical signicance together with eect sizes and response distributions rather than relying on p-values alone.”

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

PR descriptions can reduce reviewer uncertainty and improve outcomes.

“PR descriptions can reduce reviewer uncertainty and improve outcomes [46].”

• cites [46]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.

Perceived review quality depends on feedback thoroughness, reviewer familiarity, change quality, and actionable feedback.

“perceived review quality depends on feedback thoroughness, reviewer familiarity, change quality, and actionable feedback [8,13].”

• cites [8]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.

May combine two claims.

The evidence that provenance labels by themselves affect review outcomes is mixed and depends on the task and outcome being measured.

“the evidence that provenance labels by themselves aect review outcomes is mixed and depends on the task and outcome being measured.”

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

The sample showed geographic breadth with some concentration in major respondent countries.

“indicating geographic breadth with some concentration in major respondent countries.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.

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

Automation can be used, misused, disused, or abused.

“Automation can be used, misused, disused, or abused [33]”

• cites [33]Not matched

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

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Because no comprehensive sampling frame of such practitioners exists, complementary recruitment sources were used to reach reviewers with different levels of professional experience, project context, and exposure to AIPRs.

“Because no comprehensive sampling frame of such practitioners exists, we used complementary recruitment sources to reach reviewers with dierent levels of professional experience, project context, and exposure to AIPRs.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Open-ended responses were analyzed using codebook-based thematic coding.

“We analyzed the open-ended responses using codebook-based thematic coding [97].”

• cites [97]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).

Projects have introduced policies that generally permit AI assistance while requiring disclosure, human involvement, and accountability.

“projects have introduced policies that generally permit AI assistance while requiring disclosure, human involvement, and accountability [54][55][56].”

• cites [54]Not matched

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

• cites [55]Not matched

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

• cites [56]Not matched

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

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Because HPR and AIPR items were paired, within-respondent differences are examined while holding constant the respondent's broader review experience and disposition.

“Because HPR and AIPR items were paired, we additionally examine within-respondent dierences while holding constant the respondent's broader review experience and disposition.”

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

Each respondent answered matched questions about HPRs and AIPRs, so differences in trust formation, evidence requirements, uncertainty handling, verification depth, and effort allocation can be examined within the same person.

“Each respondent answered matched questions about HPRs and AIPRs, so dierences in trust formation, evidence requirements, uncertainty handling, verication depth, and eort allocation can be examined within the same person.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The HPR and AIPR scenarios in the questionnaire are comparable except for the perceived authorship of the pull request.

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

Reviewers develop subsystem ownership through repeated review activity.

“reviewers develop subsystem ownership through repeated review activity [28]”

• cites [28]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).

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).

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

“We developed the questionnaire iteratively following guidance for survey research in software engineering [73,74,78,79].”

• cites [73]Not matched

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

• cites [74]Not matched

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

• cites [78]Not matched

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

• cites [79]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).

Appropriate reliance requires calibrating trust to code quality, change risk, evidence credibility, and accountability.

“Appropriate reliance therefore requires calibrating trust to code quality, change risk, evidence credibility, and accountability [34,35].”

• cites [34]Not matched

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

• cites [35]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.

Although respondents were instructed to select their top two options, the survey interface did not enforce this limit, so these items were analyzed as multiple-selection responses rather than strict top-two rankings.

“Although respondents were instructed to select their top two options, the survey interface did not enforce this limit.We therefore analyzed these items as multipleselection responses rather than strict top-two rankings.”

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

The University of Saskatchewan Behavioural Research Ethics Board reviewed the questionnaire for clarity and for leading, confusing, or double-barreled items.

“The University of Saskatchewan Behavioural Research Ethics Board also reviewed it for clarity and for leading, confusing, or double-barreled items.”

May combine two claims.

Instead, they looked for evidence that the AI-authored contribution is reviewable, supervised, and tied to accountable human judgment.

“Instead, they looked for evidence that the AIauthored contribution is reviewable, supervised, and tied to accountable human judgment.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The HPR and AIPR conditions differ primarily in perceived authorship, so observed differences can be attributed to authorship.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The survey items validly measure the intended constructs of trust, evidence sufficiency, uncertainty handling, and verification strategies.

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

Two industry practitioners and two software-engineering researchers independently reviewed the questionnaire for relevance, clarity, terminology, and coverage of the intended review scenarios.

“First, two industry practitioners with 8+ and 17+ years of professional experience and two software-engineering researchers with 11+ and 6+ years of MCR experience independently reviewed the questionnaire for relevance, clarity, terminology, and coverage of the intended review scenarios.”

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

The qualitative analysis employed an explicit codebook, independent coders, and inter-rater agreement.

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

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

We still know little about how perceived authorship changes reviewers' approval reasoning.

“we still know little about how perceived authorship changes reviewers' approval reasoning.”

May combine two claims.

They moved away from trust shortcuts and explanation-based checks toward concrete validation, defensive scrutiny, risk containment, and explicit human accountability.

“They moved away from trust shortcuts and explanation-based checks toward concrete validation, defensive scrutiny, risk containment, and explicit human accountability.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The HPR and AIPR conditions differ primarily in perceived authorship, so observed differences can be attributed to authorship.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The survey items validly measure the intended constructs of trust, evidence sufficiency, uncertainty handling, and verification strategies.

May combine two claims.

The sample includes many experienced developers and reviewers while retaining early-career perspectives.

“The sample therefore includes many experienced developers and reviewers while retaining early-career perspectives.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.

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

Inter-rater agreement on independently coded samples was measured using Cohen's κ.

“We measured inter-rater agreement on independently coded samples using Cohen's κ [99].”

• cites [99]Not matched

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

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Reviewers can use responsiveness during review to calibrate trust.

“responsiveness during review [29]”

• cites [29]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 achieved sample and its coverage boundaries are characterized explicitly, and conclusions are restricted 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 [75,77].”

• cites [75]Not matched

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

• cites [77]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, accountability may rest with the human prompter, submitter, or maintainer.

“For AIPRs, accountability may rest with the human prompter, submitter, or maintainer.”

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

The central challenge is not only assessing whether generated code works, but determining whether the available evidence makes the change trustworthy enough to merge.

“The central challenge, therefore, is not only assessing whether generated code works, but determining whether the available evidence makes the change trustworthy enough to merge.”

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

Trust is further shaped by risk, workload, prior experience, and interface cues.

“Trust is further shaped by risk, workload, prior experience, and interface cues [35].”

• cites [35]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).

Review coverage and participation are associated with post-release quality.

“Prior work shows that review coverage and participation are associated with post-release quality [5]”

• cites [5]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).

Most response options were identical across the HPR and AIPR versions of the questionnaire.

“Most response options were identical across the two versions.”

May combine two claims.

Residual uncertainty in AIPRs appears less likely to be treated as a manageable review note and more likely to trigger blocking, rework, or explicit human accountability.

“Thus, residual uncertainty in AIPRs appears less likely to be treated as a manageable review note and more likely to trigger blocking, rework, or explicit human accountability.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The HPR and AIPR conditions differ primarily in perceived authorship, so observed differences can be attributed to authorship.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The survey items validly measure the intended constructs of trust, evidence sufficiency, uncertainty handling, and verification strategies.

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

Exploratory analyses examining variation with AIPR exposure, software-development experience, or code-review experience are treated as contextual rather than confirmatory.

“These analyses are treated as contextual rather than con-rmatory.”

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

Every selection item included an Other or It varies option with free text, and a dedicated open-ended question asked respondents to explain their reasoning.

“Third, every selection item included an Other or It varies option with free text, and a dedicated open-ended question asked respondents to explain their reasoning.”

May combine two claims.

The sample is grounded in practical AIPR review experience while still including respondents with more limited exposure.

“Overall, the sample is grounded in practical AIPR review experience while still including respondents with more limited exposure.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.

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

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

“We therefore controlled the family-wise error rate within each set of related comparisons using the Holm procedure [96].”

• cites [96]Not matched

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

May combine two claims.

Finding 2.3: Respondents reported a higher evidentiary burden for AIPRs and, among those who described AIPR approval as harder, attributed it to doubts about both the generated code and the credibility of its supporting evidence, including explanations, context fit, and accountable human understanding.

“Finding 2.3: Respondents reported a higher evidentiary burden for AIPRs and, among those who described AIPR approval as harder, attributed it to doubts about both the generated code and the credibility of its supporting evidence, including explanations, context t, and accountable human understanding.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The HPR and AIPR conditions differ primarily in perceived authorship, so observed differences can be attributed to authorship.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The survey items validly measure the intended constructs of trust, evidence sufficiency, uncertainty handling, and verification strategies.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The challenge for reviewers is determining whether responsibility for an AIPR is clearly established and supported by credible validation evidence.

“The challenge for reviewers is determining whether that responsibility is clearly established and supported by credible validation evidence.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The two coders independently applied the stabilized codebook 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).

Candidate response options for closed-ended items were drawn from factors repeatedly identified in prior work and adapted to the AIPR setting.

“Candidate response options for closed-ended items were drawn from factors repeatedly identied in prior work and adapted to the AIPR setting.”

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 predened response alternatives capture plausible reviewer considerations identied 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). May combine two claims.

The questionnaire items are single indicators of concrete judgments and actions rather than multi-item scales for latent attitudes, so scale reliability is not reported.

“Its items are single indicators of concrete judgments and actions rather than multi-item scales for latent attitudes [80], so we do not report scale reliability.”

• cites [80]Not matched

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

May combine two claims.

AIPR verification is not broader overall, but more oriented toward defensive validation, risk containment, and human accountability.

“Thus, AIPR verication is not broader overall, but more oriented toward defensive validation, risk containment, and human accountability.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The HPR and AIPR conditions differ primarily in perceived authorship, so observed differences can be attributed to authorship.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The survey items validly measure the intended constructs of trust, evidence sufficiency, uncertainty handling, and verification strategies.

May combine two claims.

Generated code may be sensitive to semantically equivalent prompts, contain insecure patterns, or fail when tasks require broader project contexts.

“generated code may be sensitive to semantically equivalent prompts, contain insecure patterns, or fail when tasks require broader project contexts [30][31][32]58].”

• cites [30]Not matched

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

• cites [31]Not matched

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

• cites [32]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.

PR acceptance is associated with change size, test results, discussion activity, project membership, and contribution history.

“PR acceptance is associated with change size, test results, discussion activity, project membership, and contribution history [25,26,40].”

• cites [25]Not matched

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

• cites [26]Not matched

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

• cites [40]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).

Human reviewers engage in more review rounds for AI-generated code than for human-written code.

“Human reviewers also engage in more review rounds for AI-generated code than for humanwritten code [49]”

• cites [49]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 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 rened through iterative validation, without relying on a previously established psychometric scale.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Reviewers can use prior contribution record to calibrate trust.

“Reviewers can use social and project-history signals, including prior contribution record [25][26][27]”

• cites [25]Not matched

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

• cites [26]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.

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

The study used a purposive, multi-frame recruitment strategy to reach practitioners with relevant experience in code review.

“We used a purposive, multi-frame recruitment strategy to reach practitioners with relevant experience in code review.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

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

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

May combine two claims.

AIPR review does not simply increase demand for more tests; it shifts approval toward reviewer-owned reasoning about critical cases.

“Thus, AIPR review does not simply increase demand for more tests.It shifts approval toward reviewer-owned reasoning about critical cases.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The HPR and AIPR conditions differ primarily in perceived authorship, so observed differences can be attributed to authorship.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The survey items validly measure the intended constructs of trust, evidence sufficiency, uncertainty handling, and verification strategies.

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.”

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

Reliance is appropriate only when trust is calibrated to capability, task context, and available evidence.

“reliance is appropriate only when trust is calibrated to capability, task context, and available evidence [34].”

• cites [34]Not matched

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

May combine two claims.

A survey suits the research questions because a reviewer's initial trust, the cues behind it, the evidence the reviewer considers sufficient, and the action taken when uncertainty remains are rarely recorded in repository traces, which capture outcomes and comments rather than the reasoning behind them.

“A survey suits our RQs because a reviewer's initial trust, the cues behind it, the evidence the reviewer considers sucient, and the action taken when uncertainty remains are rarely recorded in repository traces, which capture outcomes and comments rather than the reasoning behind them [76].”

• cites [76]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).

A pilot study was conducted with 11 software practitioners with code-review experience.

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

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 [73,74] and the ACM SIGSOFT Empirical Standards [75].”

• cites [73]Not matched

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

• cites [74]Not matched

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

• cites [75]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 sampling objective was to obtain a heterogeneous practitioner sample capable of providing experience-based evidence about AIPR review rather than to reproduce the demographic distribution of the broader software development population.

“Our sampling objective was to obtain a heterogeneous practitioner sample capable of providing experiencebased evidence about AIPR review rather than to reproduce the demographic distribution of the broader software development population.”

May combine two claims.

Answer for RQ1: Respondents described trust calibration under perceived AI authorship as starting from lower confidence and drawing on a narrower set of signals treated as credible assurance.

“Answer for RQ 1 : Respondents described trust calibration under perceived AI authorship as starting from lower condence and drawing on a narrower set of signals treated as credible assurance.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The HPR and AIPR conditions differ primarily in perceived authorship, so observed differences can be attributed to authorship.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The survey items validly measure the intended constructs of trust, evidence sufficiency, uncertainty handling, and verification strategies.

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

Part of the shift in subsystem familiarity may reflect wording rather than authorship alone.

“Part of this shift may therefore reect the wording rather than authorship alone.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The HPR and AIPR conditions differ primarily in perceived authorship, so observed differences can be attributed to authorship.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The survey items validly measure the intended constructs of trust, evidence sufficiency, uncertainty handling, and verification strategies.

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

The selected projects did not overlap across the repository sets.

“we veried that projects did not overlap across the repository sets.”

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

Qualitative responses are used to explain, contextualize, and occasionally qualify the 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.”

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

Review feedback is a main channel through which code review transfers knowledge and project norms, and design assessment is where reviewers protect long-term maintainability.

“Review feedback is a main channel through which code review transfers knowledge and project norms [9,10], and design assessment is where reviewers protect long-term maintainability.”

• 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.

May combine two claims.

Cohen's κ ranged from 0.91 to 0.97, indicating strong agreement in category assignment.

“Cohen's κ ranged from 0.91 to 0.97, indicating strong agreement in category assignment”

May combine two claims.

Intent comprehension, feedback, and design assessment moved later, while defensive validation, context checking, local execution, and coordination moved earlier.

“Intent comprehension, feedback, and design assessment moved later, while defensive validation, context checking, local execution, and coordination moved earlier.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Respondents' self-reported trust, cue use, approval thresholds, and actions reflect their actual review behavior.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The HPR and AIPR conditions differ primarily in perceived authorship, so observed differences can be attributed to authorship.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The survey items validly measure the intended constructs of trust, evidence sufficiency, uncertainty handling, and verification strategies.

May combine two claims.

The prompter is a partial substitute, a person to whom responsibility can be attributed but not necessarily one who can explain the change.

“The prompter is thus a partial substitute, a person to whom responsibility can be attributed but not necessarily one who can explain the change.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: A human contributor's history, knowledge of the subsystem, and responsiveness help reviewers decide how much explanation or checking is needed.

May combine two claims.

The survey did not track the long-term maintenance outcomes of such changes, so it cannot establish that AIPRs actually accumulate more debt.

“The survey did not track the long-term maintenance outcomes of such changes, so it cannot establish that AIPRs actually accumulate more debt.”

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

Repository studies of agent-authored PRs observe review interactions and rounds.

“Repository studies of agent-authored PRs observe review interactions and rounds [48,49].”

• cites [48]Not matched

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

• cites [49]Not matched

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

May combine two claims.

A provenance record can establish how a change was produced, but cannot by itself establish that the behavior was checked against the project's requirements.

“A provenance record can establish how a change was produced, but cannot by itself establish that the behavior was checked against the project's requirements”

May combine two claims.

The recruitment strategy is purposive and non-probabilistic.

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

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

Our ranked items do not measure elapsed time, so they cannot show that AIPRs increase total review minutes.

“Conversely, our ranked items do not measure elapsed time, so they cannot show that AIPRs increase total review minutes.”

May combine two claims.

This interpretation is consistent with research on appropriate reliance on automation and with Alami et al., who show that code review rests on reciprocal accountability that an LLM reviewer cannot provide.

“This interpretation is consistent with research on appropriate reliance on automation [34,35] and with Alami et al. [71], who show that code review rests on reciprocal accountability that an LLM reviewer cannot provide.”

• cites [34]Not matched

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

• cites [35]Not matched

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

• cites Alami et al. [71]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).

Many projects now adopt AI contribution policies that require disclosure, human involvement, and accountability.

“Many projects now adopt AI contribution policies that require disclosure, human involvement, and accountability [54][55][56].”

• cites [54]Not matched

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

• cites [55]Not matched

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

• cites [56]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).

Understanding and ownership debt is an interpretive concept for a downstream risk, not a construct directly measured by this survey.

“We use understanding and ownership debt as an interpretive concept for a downstream risk, not as a construct directly measured by this survey.”