diff --git a/COLLABORATOR_GUIDE.md b/COLLABORATOR_GUIDE.md
index 608dd347e5f55a..f258f92108f84b 100644
--- a/COLLABORATOR_GUIDE.md
+++ b/COLLABORATOR_GUIDE.md
@@ -305,7 +305,6 @@ in the placeholder's `README`.
 For pull requests introducing new core modules:
 
 * Allow at least one week for review.
-* Label with the `tsc-review` label.
 * Land only after sign-off from at least two TSC members.
 * Land with a [Stability Index][] of Experimental. The module must remain
   Experimental until a semver-major release.
@@ -382,9 +381,8 @@ This should be done where a pull request:
 - has failed to reach consensus amongst the Collaborators who are
   actively participating in the discussion.
 
-Assign the `tsc-review` label or @-mention the
-`@nodejs/tsc` GitHub team if you want to elevate an issue to the [TSC][].
-Do not use the GitHub UI on the right-hand side to assign to
+@-mention the `@nodejs/tsc` GitHub team if you want to elevate an issue to the
+[TSC][]. Do not use the GitHub UI on the right-hand side to assign to
 `@nodejs/tsc` or request a review from `@nodejs/tsc`.
 
 The TSC should serve as the final arbiter where required.
diff --git a/GOVERNANCE.md b/GOVERNANCE.md
index d92d3c821e85b3..11499b4c7814a1 100644
--- a/GOVERNANCE.md
+++ b/GOVERNANCE.md
@@ -50,10 +50,6 @@ be accepted unless:
   This should only happen if disagreements between Collaborators cannot be
   resolved through discussion.
 
-Collaborators may opt to elevate significant or controversial modifications to
-the TSC by assigning the `tsc-review` label to a pull request or issue. The
-TSC should serve as the final arbiter where required.
-
 See:
 
 * [Current list of Collaborators](./README.md#current-project-team-members)
@@ -105,11 +101,9 @@ The intention of the agenda is not to approve or review all patches.
 That should happen continuously on GitHub and be handled by the larger
 group of Collaborators.
 
-Any community member or contributor can ask that something be reviewed
-by the TSC by logging a GitHub issue. Any Collaborator, TSC member, or the
-meeting chair can bring the issue to the TSC's attention by applying the
-`tsc-review` label. If consensus-seeking among TSC members fails for a
-particular issue, it may be added to the TSC meeting agenda by adding the
+Any community member or contributor can ask that something be reviewed by the
+TSC by logging a GitHub issue. If consensus-seeking among TSC members fails for
+a particular issue, it may be added to the TSC meeting agenda by adding the
 `tsc-agenda` label.
 
 Prior to each TSC meeting, the meeting chair will share the agenda with
diff --git a/doc/onboarding.md b/doc/onboarding.md
index 5938803e531c95..b8b6ee62337dfa 100644
--- a/doc/onboarding.md
+++ b/doc/onboarding.md
@@ -89,8 +89,6 @@ onboarding session.
     so that we know what parts of the code base the pull request modifies. It is
     not perfect, of course. Feel free to apply relevant labels and remove
     irrelevant labels from pull requests and issues.
-  * Use the `tsc-review` label if a topic is controversial or isn't coming to a
-    conclusion after an extended time.
   * `semver-{minor,major}`:
     * If a change has the remote *chance* of breaking something, use the
       `semver-major` label