A team can generate more code while delivering no more useful software. Implementation is one part of the path from a customer problem to a change that reaches the customer.
Follow a change through the team
Take one recent feature. How long did it wait for a decision? For review? For an integration, a release, or someone to verify it worked? Put those waits beside the time spent writing code.
If implementation takes a day and review takes a week, producing twice as many changes may enlarge the review queue. The team has increased output at one step without increasing completed work.
Move judgment closer to the work
A change is easier to review when its purpose, constraints, and acceptance criteria are explicit. Small changes with a named owner and observable outcomes give both people and agents less room to misunderstand the task.
Some delays require technical fixes: better tests, reproducible environments, or safer deployment. Others require a decision about who can approve a change and what evidence they need. Buying a coding tool does not settle those questions.
Measure the complete trip
Track elapsed time from an agreed problem to a verified change, alongside rework and failures. Compare similar work before and after a change in process. Lines of code and generated pull requests describe activity; they do not establish whether customers got something useful sooner.
The next investment should address the step holding up the whole process. Sometimes that is a better model. Sometimes it is a smaller project or a decision someone has been avoiding.
The timing example is illustrative, not a measured client result.