IMO a practical benefit of a routine code review is just a shared understanding. As simple as that. Does the code look to be doing what it says it should do? Do the tests express the intended behavior?

Of course, the style, the quality of code could be of attention too, but that's extras, in my opinion, as long as the functionality is understood and confirmed.

I like relating this to an effort of understanding someone who speaks with an accent, be it a local dialect or foreign-originated. It does require some tolerance, but the shared understanding is the goal.

I've found this to be true in change control as well as any meeting involving people who feel they are compelled to "contribute" even if they don't have anything of value. You don't want to seem like the person who's just attending the meeting and slacking off, so if you're expected to contribute and you can't find any useful critiques, you just pick nits.