I think the flaw is that someone believes they turn up to a project and in reviewing code to fit it to a mental model they understand they believe they're improving the readability for others who think like them.
In reality it becomes design by committee, worst of all worlds.
Slightly tangential, but I'm about to leave a project where it gets the review process badly wrong - anyone can and will comment on a review, but only a select few can merge. They have a massive bottleneck of reviews with many held up by conflicting style preferences, or comments on neighbouring code not modified, none of which is able to be resolved by agreement as no one willing to take authority over any one view. Even the simplest one line change can't get merged within a month which essentially means development has stalled other than for the few who have merge rights.
Give me a lone developer's codebase to wrestle with any day.