WHY THEM  Writes about problem description style in their own reviews.

“Unrelated but this one is computable (maybe the only one?) For example: ```lean abbrev SetTheory.Set.empty_iProd_equiv (X: (∅:Set) → Set) : iProd X ≃ Unit where toFun := fun t ↦ () invFun := fun x ↦ ⟨tuple fun e ↦ False.elim (not_mem_empty _ e.property), by apply tuple_mem_iProd⟩ left_inv := by intro t have h := (mem_iProd _).mp t.property obtain ⟨x, ht⟩ := h ext rw [ht, tuple_inj] ext e have := not_mem_empty e contradiction right_inv := by intro simp ``` Not included because the book has a "why" seemingly for a related question: <img width="1468" height="616" alt="Screenshot 2025-08-07 at 04 16 37" src="https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/edd16e6f-927a-4a37-8bb4-302761ddac53" /> ”

WHY THEM  Writes about async, direct, low ritual in their own reviews.

“tout au singulier = plus de débat et pas de cas par cas par nom de module comme pour des tables sql par exemple”

WHY THEM  Has reviewed this kind of change before.

“The `handleReviewClick` callback deps look correct. One thing — `router` and `transitionRouter` are both in the deps array which is fine, but it would be nice to double-check that `useTransitionRouter` from `next-view-transitions` is stable across renders (i.e. doesn't cause unnecessary re-creation of the callback). AFAIK it should be but worth confirming.”