A change in what product/design reviews interrogate: shifting from status questions ('did you ship it,' 'is it done') to process questions ('how did you validate it,' 'what did you test, with which user, what did you learn, what's the next action'). The status version rewards output and completion; the process version forces the team to narrate its judgment and evidence, which is what actually builds a reviewer's trust in a team's decision-making over time. It's a concrete review-cadence mechanism for the broader output-to-outcomes shift, and it only works if the reviewer is willing to sit with an answer like 'we learned it didn't work' instead of treating that as a status failure.