If the answer were as simple as “finding defects,” then a fully automated review starts to sound inevitable (and appealing).
But if code review was also how teams shared knowledge, built collective ownership, spread architectural understanding, and taught junior engineers how experienced developers think, then the answer becomes much less obvious.
That’s the mistake I think many organizations are about to make, and the reason we need to rethink what code review is actually for.
Thank you for sharing this, OP. This paragraph here is solid gold:
Education and understanding. It’s naive to think it solves bugs. You might catch and avoid some but static code analysis does that well too.