This would be a great idea, if the review audit algorithm actually worked. 

I posted a [very clear example here][1] of why it doesn't, and there was a very similar post made by another user that same day. If the review audits can fail that badly when selecting a question for the audit, it would be too easy for the "suspicion level" to be invalidly increased. I failed my first two review audits *ever* within a five minute span; the first I questioned (but decided not to follow up on and accept as my mistake), the second was a 100% wrong failure of the audit review itself (and the reason for the post I linked above). 

The two review audit failures within 5 minutes certainly would have elevated my "suspicion level" quickly, even though the first IMO was a very questionable failure, and the second was so apparently unreasonable that I asked others to explain it by posting here at Meta. There's no real appeal from an invalid failure, though; I don't think either (or both) of the invalid failures were removed from my history, so I still show that I failed two review audits.


  [1]: http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/195983/172661