a vague additional idea:
can we improve rough assessment of code quality?
1) suppose we have pseudonym reputation ("error notice probability"): anyone can create a pseudonym, and start auditing code, and you mark the parts of code that you have inspected. those marks are publicly associated with your pseudonym (after enough operation and eventual finding of bugs by others, the "noticing probability" can be computed+).
2) consider the birthday paradox, i.e. drawing samples from the uniform distribution will result in uncoordinated attention, while with coordinated attention we can spread attention more uniformly...
+ of course theres different kinds of issues, i.e. new features, arguments about wheiter something is an improvement or if it was an oversighted issue etc... but the future patch types don't necessarily correlate to the individuals who inspected it...
ALSO: I still believe formal verification is actually counterintuitively cheaper (money and time) and less effort per achieved certainty. But as long as most people refuse to believe this, I encourage strategies like these...