This is somewhat specific to Stack Overflow. My concern is the "I understand" button that appears when you fail a Review Audit.
I had this experience twice recently (after never having previously failed an audit), once shortly before the revamping of the Close/On Hold mechanism and once today.
In both cases (one a Close audit, one a Reopen audit) I'd spent several minutes studying the Question under Review, and would happily explain my reasons for voting as I did. I don't expect the automated audit process to be "perfect". However my post here is to point out the "I understand" button needs an alternative, which might be useful in trapping those Review Audit cases which have significant flaws for this purpose.
Since the Stack Exchange Community determines standards and moderates itself, "I understand" that the primary purpose of the audit reviews is to discourage superficial "click-through" behavior on the part of members eager to gain the corresponding badges. While it might also serve to educate users like myself who are motivated to make a dent in the backlog of Close votes, the adjuration to "STOP! Look and Listen" doesn't really accomplish this.
Proposal: Add an "I don't understand" button
So, my proposal is to implement an "I don't understand" button. It would do two things, one mildly punitive to ensure sincerity. It would suspend Review Privileges automatically for a week, or until a Moderator sees fit to remove the suspension. It would also give the User who clicks on it a chance to explain the reasons for his/her review choices, instead of placing them in the double bind of having to click "I understand" or leave the field.
I was reluctant to give specifics of my Review Audit Fails as it might a cry for a personal remedy. Now I think some specifics might help to convey the fact-intensive nature of these failures. My proposal aims to have quick impartial reviews while the Reviewers memory is still fresh (and can best accomodate a lesson-to-be-learned, if appropriate).
The first example was in a Close Vote Review (IIRC qua Not a Real Question) of a Question about current development options for Windows desktop applications. The OP disliked MS "Windows Presentation Foundation" framework but spoke favorably of some older frameworks.
A few Comments under the Question asked for clarification and complained about an erratic and distracting typography (boldfacing numerous tool names/buzzwords), and the OP had not (yet) responded to any of these. I thought that all this happened recently (within the past day).
After studying the Question I concluded that it was worthwhile and could be answered (e.g. with objective information about HTML5 technology). The annoying boldface emphasis and slightly whiny tone, but (1) I didn't assess those as deal breakers and (2) given a bit more time perhaps the OP might undertake to make those changes him/herself. With these considerations in mind, I voted to Leave Open.
Afterward the system disclosed that the Question was actually much older (a month+) and had been Deleted soon after being Closed. Given an opportunity to respond and revise, the OP may have elected instead to Delete their Question.
My second example was a Reopen Vote Review, recently enough to have the new Close Reason framework (apparently as an Off-Topic closure, IIRC). The Question asked about why a Python inequality comparison succeeds in cases involving nonnumeric values. Comments under the Question confirmed the behavior but noted its elimination in Python 3, as well as remarking that why the "feature" existed previously would be open to discussion. [Presumably the Question is still out there on Stack Overflow, but searches using both Stack Exchange and Google did not find the exact item, only duplicates.]
I voted not to Reopen based mostly on two considerations. First, the Question had never been edited, and so not eligible for reopening based on revision. Second, it appeared that the Question was something of a call for mildly opinion-based discussion ("why" does Python 2 behave that way) and closed accordingly.
While these Audit Review cases may well have been constructed programmatically or manually by someone who thought them quite cut-and-dried examples (and I accept the utility of doing something like this), there should IMHO be a feedback mechanism that weeds out those not susceptible to a "teachable moment".
Added: I have discovered a new way to fail a Review Audit, by making (or trying to make) a Comment on (purportedly) a User's First Post. According to the information presented, the 2 hour old Answer being reviewed was being posted more than a week after an Accepted Answer, and it was frankly a little terse in phrasing, so I intended to make a Comment to the effect that when posting Answers so much after the fact, brevity in supplying detail is not so virtuous as it might be when answering in a more timely fashion. The reveal: I'm actually reviewing the tersely phrased but Accepted Answer posted nine days before.