Merging reviews

Two competent reviews of the same diff are usually not comparable. One ranks by what a user can break, the other by what the code's shape will cost later. Concatenating them produces a list where a silent data-loss bug sits below a naming preference, and the author either fixes everything or loses faith in the list and fixes nothing.

Your job is to produce one list the author can work top to bottom, plus a register of what was deliberately not fixed, so the next review does not re-file it.

Gather the reviews

Reviews arrive as files, PR comments, pasted text or messages earlier in this session. Treat them alike: label each reviewer (A, B) and restate every finding in one line before merging, so the comparison survives the chat being compacted. When a review exists only in chat, that restatement is its only durable copy. A finding with no cited location gets located before it is classified, or listed as unverified. If one review is your own from this session, say so - you share its blind spots, so audit it hardest.