I promised myself I will stay out of the CBit thread but since my post is not about CBit itself per se and referring to general principles I will post it.

I dont think it is fair of you to criticize earlz in the general way you are doing. You must remember that there are three relevant categories in general in the IT world - people, process and technology. Applied to a coin this would be people (dev team characteristics), process (launch procedures and other general procedures) and technology (code). He is only really required to give his view on the technology part which is the actual code. If he picks up stuff more than just the code in any of the categories people, process and technology he will post it. It is difficult to pick up things in the people and process categories but he always at least gives a view on the code. It is a bonus if he picks up other stuff.

A project can have A-grade code and nothing material popping up in the people or process of the coin at the time of review - just like normal auditing procedures from an auditor. You can compare this with an audit of financial statements of a company which can be unqualified. However it is possible for something to pop up later non-code wise like a dev that hid scam intentions very well early on that decided to disappear later. You cannot blame earlz for that. To take my analogy further, such a company with unqualified financial statements could have a management team that decides later to defraud the shareholders but their intentions were not clear at the time of the audit. You will probably see that where there were A-grade reviews of a coin that turned out to be a scam it was on the code only and he did not vouch for the dev or processes because they were hid well by the dev team. You should rather be glad if earlz picks up some people/process or potential scam issues with a coin.