Wiz's updated research account says Copilot checked a merged pull request and returned an all-clear. The update clarifies that authorship of the vulnerable change is unclear; Autofix addressed a different file in the affected pull request. The earlier article overstated that history as proof that an AI-written Autofix caused the compromise. We have removed that assertion and the use of Hacker News engagement as evidence of review capacity at most firms.
Review the change that actually shipped
Our recommendation is to inspect the final diff, the relevant permissions and the behavior that the change introduces. Keep tool-generated commentary separate from evidence that a person or test checked a particular condition. Establish which version was tested and which version was accepted.
Use narrow tools for the questions they answer
The Go team's deadcode introduction describes finding unreachable functions. It was published in December 2023, not launched as an August 2026 response to AI-authored code. An unreachable-code check does not establish a security review or complete correctness.
Specify acceptance before expanding automation
For changes involving access or data movement, agree the intended behavior, the negative tests and the person authorized to accept the result. Preserve the evidence for the merged version. These are our proposed review practices; the sources do not establish a general review bottleneck across law firms.
A proposed acceptance test
For a workflow the firm is considering, write down the permitted task, the identity it runs under and the records it may access. Mark the actions that need a person to approve them. Include a stop condition and an identified staff owner for escalation. These are implementation recommendations, not evidence that the firm currently has a problem.
Test a normal request, an ambiguous request and a request outside the permitted task. Inspect the actual records and logs rather than relying solely on the agent's explanation of what it did. Keep the test and expected result so it can be repeated after changes.
Make the comparison specific
Ask the implementer to show the behavior on the proposed configuration. Distinguish what is enforced by software from what is merely requested in a prompt. Record unresolved limits and decide whether the remaining work and risk are acceptable before expanding access. A demonstration is evidence about that test, not a promise about every future interaction.
Editorial correction: unsupported or unavailable-source claims were revised. Original publication date retained; this correction does not certify every other article in the archive.