This post hits on something crucial - the difference between performative code review and substantive collaboration. The "theatre" metaphor is spot-on. The core issue Saša identifies - PRs that are "unreviewable" getting rubber-stamped with "LGTM". Teams go through the motions without the actual substance.

The storytelling approach through commits is brilliant, but it only works if you solve the human factors too. Even perfectly crafted PRs with great commit narratives get surface-level reviews. The friction kills engagement.

A few complementary approaches I've seen work: pair reviewing for complex changes that are hard to break down, AI pre-screening for basic issues so humans can focus on architecture/business logic, and synchronous review sessions when async back-and-forth is just burning time.

The key insight: good PR structure needs to be paired with removing tooling friction. When review is painful, people default to "LGTM" regardless of how well the story is told.