What is the core problem you are looking to solve here? Multiple people must accept?

Not exactly - we tend to list multiple reviewers on changes, but we don't formally require multiple reviewers to accept before landing changes.

However, individual reviewers are interested in looking through changes as they happen even if they may have been accepted by someone else. They've asked if there's an easy way to differentiate between revisions they've looked at and accepted and revisions they haven't yet looked at so they can quickly skim through them.

I would "Flag for Later" the review then if this is an individual desire or create a new search with something like "Reviewer = me and status = accepted"

Overall though this feels arbitrary if you need to be performing reviews. That is, it's not really consistent or programatic that you'll catch something. Prefer using owners/herald/blocking reviewers to enforce better review policy.

Thanks for the suggestion! I tried the search you suggested, but I think that pulls up both revisions that I've accepted and revisions that I haven't yet accepted.

I guess "Flag for Later" depends on the reviewer in question taking that action as new revisions are created - perhaps a good way to go about doing this is to have this reviewer create a Herald rule that flags all revisions he's a reviewer on for later, and he can clear the flag as he looks through each of them?

Yeah unfortunately we don't have not rules for queries, just not much interest. Herald can be used to auto-flag like you suggest. It's not a perfect solution for what you want, but I think gets most of it in an absolute way. My main concern about just using a query is some sort of race condition where your sent a review, it's reviewed and landed while you're out in a meeting.

At least with Flags you can still review it after landing and raise any concerns.

Yes - that definitely makes sense. Thanks!