Review key: distinguish data corruption, retry policy and useful logging
Open after reviewing the three proposed importer patches. The table identifies the smallest input that supports each decision. A review should say what would change for the user or stored data, then name the narrow repair.
| PR | Decision and minimal reproduction | Regression / lead follow-through |
|---|---|---|
| 101 | Block. Store a,29,USD, then a,200,USD; removing equality check silently accepts a conflicting event |
test_conflicting_duplicate_rolls_back_page; preserve atomic page rollback and assign finance/partner owners to conflict resolution |
| 102 | Block as written pending service-contract decision. 429 Retry-After 0.75 becomes retry at 0.05 | test_retry_timing must still observe 0.75; request an explicit protocol change before releasing early retry behavior |
| 103 | Approve bounded metadata change with a logging assertion; status and attempt contain no transaction payload | Assert one record per transport response and no IDs/amounts; exceptions before response still require error metrics separately |
A strong review distinguishes severe data loss from protocol/operational risk, then recognizes a narrowly useful change. Rejecting all three without causal evidence is not strong review. Run the reference tests first, apply a patch only in a disposable copy, and show the named regression fail. The PRs omit unrelated surrounding context on purpose; ask to inspect it. See practice scoring.