The affordances in the tools we use shape what kinds of behaviors we do in practice.

When reviewing a document, the most useful thing you can give is a synthesized, high-level view:

"I found this analysis convincing for X, Y, Z reasons and as a result I think we should do A."

"Although I want this conclusion to be true, I think the weak part of the argument is X and unless we have more confidence in that we shouldn't change our plan."

Google Docs has an amazing comment feature that allows people to make concrete comments about specific runs of text.

Google Docs comments are great for detailed questions and observations. They are not great at broad, synthesized points.

Leaving a Google Doc comment on a detail is a good way of demonstrating "I am engaged and paying attention, because I am even spotting small things in the details".

In the limit though the performative, superficial aspect of "I'm paying attention" dominates the more fundamentally useful "expressing useful feedback" use case.

As a result feedback in Google Docs (and similar tools) tends to be more nitpicky and overly-detailed than it might otherwise be.