Checkers who make no markings while checking are asking for trouble. Their behavior necessitates personal communication with the author. The checker has to explain whatever findings he remembers to the author, there is no alternative. Personal communication is one of the best ways to avoid and clear misunderstandings, especially if done with frankly and openly, but it is good to have alternatives. As we'll see in the next section, Suboptimal Feedback, written feedback using a standardized form can be much more effective in communicating the defects to the author than verbal communication.

Why would you disregard the importance of defects so as to not make any markings? You could be aiming too low (3 findings instead of 30) and trying to remember the findings without markings. Unmarked findings don't contribute to a remarkable code inspection. Some of the unmarked findings will inevitably be lost as you cannot remember all your findings.

The reason for not marking can be unclear guidance. If you aren't clearly instructed that you are supposed to mark everything - and by the dozen -, you might think that just a few findings will be sufficient. You certainly haven't internalized the Plentiful Principle.

A part of Chapter 2. "Symptoms" are things that can go wrong with code inspections. In other words, an organization that is conducting code inspections might not be getting all it could from them because of reasons like the one above.