Borrowing from your comment, here is the main problem.
Of course there is "Edit", but I don't always want to/have time to edit a review.
If you don't have time to fix problems with low quality questions, you should not be using the queue. The whole point is to identify and fix issues. If you don't have time for that, just leave it for somebody else or for another time.
The point is not to get through the queue as fast as you can. The point is to do something to improve the situation. When you run across something obviously low quality you should not be asking yourself whether it might be "admissible", but whether or not there is anything that could be done to improve it.
All of the cases you list as examples clearly could have been improved with edits. At least they could have used a downvote and comments might be in order to explain the various issues. There is also a "low quality" flag for when things are hopelessly low and cannot be fixed with an edit.
If the point of your meta post is to dispute these audit results, I would say "denied". The audit system seems to be doing its job in catching you not doing your job. You should take this opportunity to review what you are supposed to be doing with those queues and learn to do it properly.
The first-post queue is not just a spam filter, the point of going through it should be to find ways to bring low quality posts up to par. By selecting "no action needed" on clearly low quality posts you have legitimately flunked the audit.