[charcircuit]

>They have shown that the people they nudge are more likely to do a code review. But are they the experts who do the review well?

I think there's assumption that people won't just rubberstamp significant diffs to code they don't own. When submitting a change to another team's project if the reviewers that are suggested aren't actually the right person they are more likely to know the right person who should review it and they can manually add that person.

>The 1.5 percent in reviewed diffs could also be jitter.

Facebook / Meta has tools for measuring the effects of changes and seeing if they are statistically significant. Yes, it could still be jitter but without them giving more data about the experiment we can't tell what the chance of it being due to chance is.

>There doesn't seem to be a review process for the review team

There isn't a review team. Anyone can review a change.

[gtirloni]

> I think there's assumption that people won't just rubberstamp significant diffs to code they don't own

I wouldn't advise doing that but to play devil's advocate, why shouldn't they do that when number of reviews are probably a metric in their performance review? What's in place to discourage that?