PRs with just the results and final code doesn't seem better even if we assume ai coding will be much faster.
The team is taking a pretty strong stance against external AI-assisted PRs, which makes you think they'd take a weak stance against internal AI-assisted PRs? It's hard to draw the exact line, but maybe?
For our team, the outcome is the PR, and you have to set up _a lot of testing infrastructure_ to prevent regressions. It's a skillset like any other.
It would be consistent with their actions that my belief is they are slow to adopt workflows that will accelerate them. Thus velocity will decrease.
What I am saying is squishy conjecture.
On the other hand, they're training new contributors to make internal AI-assisted PRs by requiring them to make non-assisted PRs? That sounds unlikely but I suppose possible.
What exactly is this skillset? Why should AI created PR's be any different from other PRs?
To me this seems like a very sensible move.. they don't want to deal with bad code from uninvested contributors. I can't possibly see how that would harm them. If they want to use AI themselves, given their track record I trust they would do it tastefully.