Reviews

Definition
Reviews are structured examinations of work after preparation but before final reliance or release. They exist to detect error, validate reasoning, and confirm that defined standards were met. A review is a checkpoint in workflow. It is not production. It is verification.

Application
Reviews operate at defined handoffs and decision points.

In accounting, reviews occur over reconciliations, journal entries, financial statements, and close packages. In finance, they examine models, forecasts, capital requests, and variance analysis. In operations, they evaluate performance metrics, process adherence, incident reports, and project milestones.

When well designed, reviews are criteria-based and proportionate to risk. The reviewer understands what must be true and tests for those conditions directly. Documentation supports traceability. Feedback is specific. Issues are resolved near their source.

When poorly structured, reviews become broad re-performance. Reviewers redo work rather than test control points. Standards are unclear, so evaluation becomes subjective. The same corrections recur across cycles. The burden shifts upward because preparation is inconsistent.

Reviews reduce reliance on blind trust only when they are anchored in defined expectations.

Implication
Reviews absorb quality risk. When calibrated correctly, they reduce downstream correction and protect reliability without expanding supervision. Execution improves because preparation aligns with known review criteria.

When excessive or compensatory, reviews signal weak upstream design. Multiple layers are added to catch preventable error. Cycle time increases. Judgment is consumed rechecking ordinary work. Trust narrows to individuals rather than extending to process.

The condition of reviews reveals where confidence resides. If review primarily confirms what structure already enforces, design is strong. If review repeatedly rescues unstable output, structure is thin and effort is carrying the load.