Too lax code inspection processes allow you to show up in the feedback meeting unprepared. You've failed to find time to check at all. You don't have any findings to report, but show up anyway.

You typically choose one of the following courses of action. Once you notice how seriously the others are taking the findings and how important it would be for your image to have a few findings of your own, you start frantically checking. Another possible course of action is to loudly agree with other checkers. A comment like "I found that, too!" is typical. You might also mistake your comments on the importance of others' findings to be of value. You might back them "Oh, that's a nasty one!" or attack them with "That's not a real defect!".

Your contribution as an unprepared checker is close to zero (or even negative) and just by participating you make the code inspection more expensive (you could be 'contributing' somewhere else) and therefore less feasible. Unprepared checkers are an obvious sign of laxness in the code inspection process. Alternatively, if all checkers have to attend regardless of whether they've checked or not, the lowered productivity indicates too strict a process.

If the inspection process has a meeting, people should arrive prepared. There must be ways of showing that preparation is the most important phase of inspection. One way is to postpone the meeting until everybody has had enough time to prepare. These kinds of conflicts are reasons why Tick-the-Code inspections have no meetings at all. Chapter 2. "Symptoms" lists other possible problems with more complex inspection processes. Simplicity rules.