[SandRat]

When you write something, it's possible to have your mind "fill in" the missing parts when "proofreading". You see what you want to see, not what is actually present.

As a full time Software QA / QC worker I can tell you that is the case in reviewing the Software transitioning to us for Post Development Service Support and on the written User Defect Reports, our Code Engineers written Assessment of the Defect and the Written Technical Solution.

We won't even get into formal reports, papers, and technical recommendations/proposals.

[Myrddin]

I've worked on a number of projects where we used peer code reviews before committing a change to the source code control system. It really does ferret out problems. A retired admiral came to work at my start-up in 1997. He quipped that, "You don't get what you expect...you get what you inspect". My interfaces to FirstUSA Paymentech got a full department review. Marshall Rose recommended an improvement to the section of my code that took the DNS name and converted to IP address. I had taken the first answer. Marshall insisted that I have code that iterates through the alternatives until one succeeds. That technique is useful on a multi-homed host where one network might be down. I updated the implementation accordingly.