> My argument here is that what is worth $200k+ is the ability to distinguish the changes that must get thorough, critical review from those that need only a couple of specific things verified and those that require no manual review at all.

The problems:

1. The market is/has been saturated with engineers/developers earning well into the six-figures who are basically decent at writing code but not so good at anything else. So sorting out who is really worth these salaries is not going to be easy and the people who decide often lack the knowledge and skills to determine it.

2. You need to successfully make this argument to people who control budgets and more and more of them just aren't going to buy it.