Yeah, occasionally a process gets designed that looks like "random people who have no real incentive to do a good job put together a spec and send it to me for

Yeah, occasionally a process gets designed that looks like "random people who have no real incentive to do a good job put together a spec and send it to me for review/sign off." And the expectation is that it's just a quick once-over on my part so "can it be turned around some time this week?" I always explain that in this kind of process, all the responsibility falls on me. If they write something that's incorrect and I miss it, it's never that the spec writer should have known better, it's that I reviewed and signed off on it. Which is fine, that's part of my role, but if that's the responsibility I'm taking on then the spec review is going to be scheduled as a real deliverable with real time attached to it and if you need it ASAP then you can pick something else to de-prioritize. A good one is "we spent 6 months working with the customer to build this spec, now we're short on time, can you review this week?" Well, if it's so complex that it took 6 months to build why do you think it can be reviewed in a week? It's this idea that spec review is just a quick review but the reviewer is then responsible for anything that's wrong with it that causes a lot of issues in my world.