A program manager is coordinating a website accessibility fix where the pull request updates code, help-center docs, and legal disclaimers. Docs and legal teams must comment, the accessibility CODEOWNERS must approve, and other engineers should not be spammed with requests. Which reviewer assignment approach best satisfies the collaboration need?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
You want the right eyes without noisy inboxes. Targeted team requests plus automatic owner approval keeps signal high, and CODEOWNERS is the enforcer.
Full Explanation
The team-plus-CODEOWNERS approach is correct because GitHub lets you request team reviewers for advisory input while CODEOWNERS automatically requires approval from designated owners on owned paths, which covers docs commentary, legal commentary, and enforced accessibility sign-off without over-notification. Assigning to a single engineer fails by concept because individual assignment centralizes review but cannot represent cross-functional input and bypasses ownership rules for docs and legal areas. Requesting the whole organization fails by concept because broad visibility creates notification noise and diffusion of responsibility, slowing rather than ensuring required approvals. Self-assignment with inline comments fails by concept because author assignment removes independent review and comments in code do not route work or enforce approvals in the collaboration workflow. Exam caveat is that team requests are advisory unless branch protection requires them, so CODEOWNERS plus protection rules matter, and practical check is to open the pull request sidebar and verify team reviewers show as pending and owners show as required.