A team lead notices developers merging transformed Java files without any peer review in the IDE. What is the concern?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
You're throwing away the one step designed to catch what the tool got wrong before it ships. In-editor review is the check that stops transformation errors from reaching the shared codebase.
Full Explanation
The correct answer is the statement that bypassing team review removes the check catching transformation errors before they reach the shared codebase, undermining inspect-and-iterate. The workflow pairs generation with inspection and iteration because a first-pass transformation is not guaranteed correct, and review is where a second set of eyes catches what automated generation missed. The claim that tooling already guarantees correct output is incorrect because no transformation tool guarantees correctness on every input; that is why review is part of the workflow. The claim that review only matters for human-written code is incorrect because generated code carries the same production risk and needs the same scrutiny. The claim that the concern is purely stylistic and has no bearing on production readiness is incorrect because unreviewed logic errors are a correctness risk, not merely a style concern. For the exam, treat in-editor review as a required stage of the transformation workflow, not an optional one.