Code review has a new lazy question: "Did AI write this?" Sometimes that question matters. If private code was pasted into an unapproved tool, it matters. If generated code was shipped without understanding, it matters. If the team has a compliance policy, it matters. But as a review standard, that question is weak. The better question is: "Is this code correct, tested, maintainable, and owned by the person submitting it?" That standard catches bad AI code. It also catches bad human code. Coding Computer Science GIF by Quixy - Find & Share on GIPHY Discover & share this Coding Computer Science GIF by Quixy with everyone you know. GIPHY is how you search, share, discover, and create GIFs. giphy.com AI panic can hide ordinary review failures Take a SQL example. A report needs to include analytics events even when the segment reference is missing, because missing references are part of the data-quality signal. The wrong query looks clean: SELECT a . id , a . user_id , a .…