This DNA thing sounds a lot like a peer review. We do this all the time on varying scales. Sometimes it is as simple as asking the engineer next to you for a second pair of eyes on your work. Other times it is organized and involves many folks and much effort to analyze what is under review.

The key to it all is that in not be a shit kicking but a open and serious analysis of the work presented. Any kicking will likely be done by the receiving team to themselves over any major holes in the work.

Instigating a peer review team solely as a development path for engineers may or may not make sense as other disciplines participation is often needed in the review process.