Brian "bex" Exelbierd has published a blog post exploring follow-up questions raised by the recent debate about the use of the LLM-based review tool Sashiko in the memory-management subsystem. His main finding is that Sashiko reviews are bi-modal with regards to whether they contain reports about code not directly changed by the patch set — most do not, but the ones that do often have several such comments. Hypothesis 1: Reviewers are getting told about bugs they didn't create. Sashiko's review protocol explicitly instructs the LLM to read surrounding code, not just the diff. That's good review practice — but it means the tool might flag pre-existing bugs in code the patch author merely touched, putting those problems in their inbox. Hypothesis 2: The same pre-existing bugs surface repeatedly. If a known issue in a subsystem doesn't get fixed between review runs, every patch touching nearby code could trigger the same finding. That would create a steady drip of duplicate noise across t