The review audit is a little fault-prone in my eyes. I did quite some reviews the last days because I think this is one of the best ways to see new posts and maybe find one to answer while doing something sensible and useful for the network.
Doing so I had to observe that the review suspension algorithm is quite harsh. When I started doing reviews, I must admit that I was a little sloppy and failed some review audits and got my first suspension - I assume for a day or something like that. After that, the next suspension is triggered after 1 failed audit for a week and the last one after the next failed audit for a month. This happened after passing plenty other audits! I think this is bluntly a random suspension generator - humans are not 100% accurate and there will be a wrong audit once in a while.
My key point here is, that there is a difference between failing an audit right after a suspension after reviewing 10 posts, and a failed audit after reviewing 100 posts and passing a lot audits in the meantime. I think it is generally a good idea to have increasing suspension times - however I do not see a reason to reset the suspension algorithm after the 1 month suspension as it is implemented currently ...
To make this more fair, I think there should be a consideration of a ratio between passed and failed audits. E.g. a ratio of 1 failed to 15 passed. In addition but maybe more complicated I would suggest to consider a ratio between helpful and disputed to declined flags.
Following this approach would encourage users to make quality reviews without disadvantage users that make a lot reviews.