Edits automatically put questions in the reopen queue. So, when I see a reopen question that has been edited, I focus on the edit. And I ask myself, has this edit made a material change to the question? And if the answer is no, I push the button to leave it closed. Because I respect my fellow community moderators, and if five of them voted to close something, I don't think I should substitute my judgement for theirs without a very good reason.
Thus, I claim that audit mechanism is biased towards the assumption that questions are typically closed capriciously. If you really believe that, team, you should have some audit mechanism for close voting, period.
If a question is in the reopen queue because a human being voted to reopen it, it makes sense to me to read it carefully and consider whether it should be reopened based on complete content. But just because an if statement noticed that someone reformatted some code, I don't think it's a good use of my time to give it a comprehensive rethink.
So I will continue to fail some of the audits, and if you ever block me, you block me. And I'll go find something else to do. But I will not waste my time reading crap.
To reiterate the failure mode:
The audit mechanism takes a 'good' question that had an edit, and tees it up as a reopen audit. If you don't ask to reopen (or edit and reopen), you fail. I fail when I see that the edit changes nothing about the quality of the question. The audit is testing a bizarre case: a fine question was closed for no reason and then edited. It's like optimizing for a grand piano flying out of a black hole.