What I asked is basically for robot-approvers.
Many times, while I was reviewing, I come across scenarios where I saw a suggested edit have problems (invalid or too minor etc). When I try to reject it, system warns me, stated the edit had accepted. It takes greater effort if the post required rollback.
That is already known as robot-approvers problem
But when it comes to edits suggested by anonymous users, it is a bit different. Do we have stats showing that anonymous edits are helpful? shows data of the anonymous suggested edits.
Edit suggestions by anonymity is the best choice for people who wants to spam or vandalize SX sites. Since many StackExchange sites have a high visitor count and have higher ranks in search engine results, it is a good place to tell people about your products by spamming existing posts. Or just vandalize them for no logical reason. Because you do not risk much. There is no need to create an account and banned IP addresses can be handled easily with some programs or changing the IP.
And when such posts reviewed by robot-approvers, then results might be worse. If the post is not detected by somebody else, then it may stay in that condition for a long time.
My suggestion is, a kind of notification box can be placed above the post in review screen stating that
edit is suggested by an anonymous user and reviewer must be careful for potencial spam or vandalism acts.
My aim is not flagging anonymous suggestions like second class citizens. But data in above link shows the rate of useful suggestions from anonymous users and we do have robot-approvers. At least, robot-approvers may be more careful about that suggestions or just skip it.