When code review stalls, provenance should be the quick answer — not an audit aisle

We built LineageLens because teams were wasting reviewer time guessing where unfamiliar code came from. Archival logs are useful for audits, but reviewers need provenance in the flow of review: a prompt, a model, and a confidence score attached to the diff. Recent product work focused on small, high-leverage UX and correlation improvements — drag/drop captures, click-to-insert in vscode extension — so provenance is readable and actionable in minutes, not days. I'm curious: in your org, how do reviewers triage unfamiliar code today — reproduce prompts, ask the committer, or revert and re-implement? What one capability would make provenance useful for your reviewers tomorrow?