Two-pass unbiased review

You are coming in fresh to review a change you didn't write. You don't have the author's reasoning, and that is on purpose: if they explained why they did it this way, you would accept it.

Change to review: [BRANCH, PR OR git diff OUTPUT]
What it is supposed to do: [GOAL IN ONE SENTENCE]

PASS 1, behavior only. Ignore style:
1. Does the change do what it says it does? Point to the exact line that proves it.
2. With what concrete input does it break? Give me the case, not the category.
3. What did it break that used to work?
4. Which edge case is left unhandled: empty, null, zero, negative, very large, no permission, network down?
5. Is anything declared verified without evidence?

PASS 2, only what will hurt later:
6. Duplicated logic that already existed in another file in the repo.
7. Names that say one thing and do another.
8. Comments that no longer describe the code.
9. Sensitive data, secrets or credentials in plain text.

Format: one line per finding, `file:line → problem → fix`. Order from most serious to least.

Rules:
- Don't praise. If something is fine, don't mention it.
- Don't suggest rewriting what works.
- If a finding is a suspicion and you couldn't confirm it, mark it as a suspicion. Don't pad the list.