It very much depends on which context the pyramid is applied. I see two types of code review typically done 1. mandatory code review as part of automated workf

It very much depends on which context the pyramid is applied. I see two types of code review typically done 1. mandatory code review as part of automated workflow. Eg. ticket in jira won't be closed or git branch won't be merged to master before someone code reviews. The reviewer does the code review asynchronously from the code author on his own his schedule. Because of time pressure and pressure of being accused of blocking the team's progress, this kind of code review tends to do the bare minimum, focusing only the correctness part of the review maslow pyramid, if at all. Most often the reviewer just points out some cosmetics so as to appear that he actually looked at it. 2. two people sit side by side (or virtually over zoom) and walk through the code together while having a synchronous conversation, asking questions when not understanding something. Higher levels of the code review pyramid can be accessed using this code review style as well as achieving higher level understanding of author's thinking process and proliferation of good practices. I've seen code review type #1 pushed in manager dominated environments, ending up as a formality and a tool of blame. I've experienced code review type #2 among very senior engineers, often organized informally with no managers involved.