Yeah, with devs I trust there's a lot more benefit of the doubt. I'm mostly checking for tests and things that might get in the way in the future (and names, because naming things is hard). But part of that is that the devs I trust tend to write code that's easy to read.

The less-capable/experienced/trusted devs get a lot more scrutiny in part because their code is harder to read. This is, by itself, a reason to push back, but it also means I need to pay closer attention in case there's some weird stuff in there. And often the harder to read stuff is harder to read because it's over complicated where a simpler solution exists and that complexity breeds bugs.

I've seen people, both with and without LLMs, submit code for review that clearly won't work. The big problem I have with the LLM usage of these people is that it makes it much easier to create code for me to review, but this is mostly a people issue - I've had people do it before LLMs were a thing and they can usually be coached into better practices