A recurring meeting can create a dependable place to coordinate, but frequency alone does not make the conversation useful. A review rhythm may be better designed around when new information becomes available, how quickly it could change a decision, and who needs to participate in acting on it.
The open question is how much cadence should be shared across an organization and how much should vary with the work. A common rhythm can support coordination; a more local one may fit decisions with different horizons. The purpose of each review should be explicit enough to know when it is helping and when it has become a ritual.