We've all been there, you're going through the review queue and accidentally (or otherwise) fail a review audit. Even when you are trying your best and not robo-reviewing, sometimes mistakes happen. Normally not a big deal, but oh no, you failed a couple last week and now have a ban of
You take it on the chin, resolve yourself to be more careful when the ban expires and pass several audits when your reviewing privileges return. But (!) you make a single mistake, hit a "bad" audit or otherwise fail and are hit with another longer ban period. This time is seems a little unfair as you were trying to review correctly, skipping where you weren't sure, looking at the original questions and everything else you're supposed to do when reviewing.
What I'm thinking is not a reward for doing what you should already be doing, but a confirmation that you have changed your ways after returning from a ban.
<insert some number here> audit passes offset
1 audit failure. That way, reviewers who are really trying and run foul of a simple mistake can show they are learning from their failures. Perhaps this offset number increasing with the number of recent failures (30 passes for 2 failures etc).
I think this would go further to encouraging the behaviour we want of reviewers, what is the consensus?
This question is similar: Does passing a review audit decrease the chance of a ban? but from a couple of years ago and asks about decreasing the chance of a ban, where I'm asking about specific metrics for reducing the failure count in a time period.