Unfortunately, I don't have an example. The question/answer that precipitated this was removed, although I'm not sure by whom.
The concept of reviewing 1st posts/answers is, presumably, that the community at large should monitor these first posts to make sure they are acceptable. Of course, there are "badge gamers" who are just looking to review as many as possible so they can achieve certain badges. This is evident when you come across a REALLY, SUPREMELY crappy question or answer and it's from a brand new user.
My question/suggestion/discussion point is; should there be some sort of penalty for accepting an obviously horrible question/answer put against the person who reviewed it? For instance (and this is open for discussion), if you come across a really bad question/answer from a first-time user, you can flag it as "Shouldn't have passed review". If a reviewer gets 10 flags, they lose the ability to review for a set time period.
My concept here is; you're not serving the community at large if you're passing a bunch of reviews that shouldn't have passed. I know there are audits slipped in now and again, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. I'm not saying I'm perfect; I've failed an audit or 2 myself. But if I hit a question that I really don't understand (i.e. about technology that I don't know and so I have no idea if it's worded properly), I hit the "Skip" button and let someone else with more knowledge tackle it. I sense there's a fair amount of people here who just hit the "Approve" button and go on their way, and they're not helping anyone by doing that.
EDIT - I'm copy/pasting this from an answer below because, while along the same lines, it's actually an improvement over my initial idea.
I think the OPs point in this case is that you don't need to know who reviewed any given post, but in the current setup it would be equal to letting the system reflect poorly on a reviewer if a "No action needed"-post then got flagged (and approved) as ie. VLQ. – Anders UP