I'm not a mod so I don't feel fully competent to judge this, but even if this is really possible to approach algorithmically: isn't this trying to replace something that a mod needs to develop by themselves - quick, competent and independent judgement of a situation? Are they not there to correct errors made by OPs, flaggers, or the system?
I can totally see the desire to use algorithms (that already work wonders for the site elsewhere) to unburden the mods a bit. But such statistics carry the high risk of leading mods into decisions without them really looking at the situation. (That is not a criticism of our moderators - it's just a human trait applying to every one of us. If you have a repetitive task, and the system allows you to, you get sloppy eventually.)
A mod needs to be able to interpret what they see, and based on that, make a decision. (That implies the occasional mistake.) A new mod needs to learn this, and automated charts don't really help do that.
If the moderators have too high a workload, we need more moderators and/or improvements in the UI to make moderating easier. (if the UI were a problem. I have no reason to assume it is. Just making the general point.)
If the necessary action for a question can be determined automatically (at least to some degree of certainty), the system should carry it out automatically (like the quality filter already blocks thousands of questions daily) or the community user should start casting flags himself, as a clearly recognizable AI entity acting based on algorithms.