A technical writer updated onboarding guides in a feature branch and must get product and engineering review before merging to main, with checks and discussion preserved. The branch is pushed and ready. Which pull request practice best creates a reviewable, merge-ready change for this documentation update?

The correct practice succeeds because opening a formal pull request from the pushed feature branch into main establishes the correct base and compare relationship, routes the documentation change through both product and engineering reviewers, links the tracked issue for traceability, and holds integration until automated checks and review discussion are recorded in one auditable place, matching the need for pre-merge review with preserved evidence. By contrast, merging immediately before required checks complete defeats branch protection and quality gates, since checks are meant to block premature integration and still catch broken links, failed previews, or formatting errors in guides. Seeking only engineering review while awaiting checks leaves an explicit stakeholder unsatisfied, because onboarding content needs product accuracy as well as technical correctness and partial approval cannot satisfy a dual-review mandate. Redirecting review toward a develop branch with a later forward merge to main breaks requested scope and traceability, because approvals and checks attached to another base do not qualify the change for main and add avoidable merge risk. As an exam caveat, watch closely for base versus compare direction, ready versus draft state, and wording about awaiting checks, as scenarios often hinge on whether approval happens before merge. As a practical check, verify the base is main, both reviewer groups are assigned, the issue is linked, and required checks are green with threads resolved before merging.