Lightweight Review Model designed
GPUaaS does not treat the full review matrix as the default for every task. The working rule is:
Use the lightest review shape that still reduces real risk.
Default Review Bar
| Risk level | Default review |
|---|---|
| low | owner self-check plus durable evidence |
| medium | one independent reviewer from a primary domain |
| high | two domains, usually owner-adjacent plus highest-risk cross-cutting domain |
| critical / release / live boundary | architecture + security + ops, plus backend/frontend when code or UX changed |
When Full Review Returns
Use the full configured review matrix only at real boundary exits:
- live or source/prod mutation;
- deploy/release approval;
- public exposure;
- credential reset/submission;
- break-glass or privileged recovery;
- sensitive-operation enforcement;
- external compliance or customer-facing claims.
What We Learned
Ceremony-heavy review on every child slice increases:
- token burn;
- coordination lag;
- stale waiting;
- shallow review on narrow context.
It does not automatically increase product quality. For GPUaaS, better results come from:
- stronger preflight;
- better tests and UAT flow coverage;
- deterministic utilities;
- grouped or epic-level review where the real boundary is larger than the child task.
Review Design Rule
Before adding more process, ask:
Will this gate improve speed, quality, or safety enough to justify its coordination cost?
If the answer is unclear, pilot it on a bounded slice first.
Better Investments Than Extra Ceremony
| Problem | Preferred investment |
|---|---|
| repeated late discovery | product-gap readiness mapping |
| CI or deploy waiting | deterministic monitor utility |
| repeated manual packet shaping | script or generated packet template |
| flow regressions found during UAT | reusable flow coverage and screenshot-backed guide |
| review churn on micro-fixes | grouped review or epic/release review |