# Bad Examples: technical-review

1. > The current implementation is a solid start, but there may be some room to improve image loading performance.

   Fails because "takes up to 10 seconds" and "unacceptable" are the point. Keep the severity.

2. > We should consider whether queue uniqueness could be leveraged to improve duplicate handling in a more robust way.

   Fails because it hides the concrete River constraint: uniqueness only works on specific input payload fields.

3. > The in-browser approach appears promising, so it may be worth consolidating around it with a clean implementation.

   Fails because it removes the decision and the quality bar: this is the one that works, consolidate on it, make it beautiful.

4. > The dialog resizing between tabs could create a slightly inconsistent user experience.

   Fails because the invariant is direct: the dialog should not change size.

5. > There are some cost considerations around the proposed database provider migration.

   Fails because "the cost increase seems quite excessive" is the judgement.

6. > The proposed job architecture should be evaluated to ensure it aligns with the new processing model.

   Fails because it avoids the before/after: railway endpoint every hour -> self-contained pgBoss chunked job.

7. > This gateway strategy raises interesting questions around routing efficiency for multiple web instances.

   Fails because it says nothing useful. The unresolved problem is lowest-latency routing without an edge network.

8. > This output seems unexpected.

   Fails when the source says "This seems wrong". Do not soften obvious suspicion.