While I've been typing, I see that there now is a link to What are review tests audits and how do they work, which I now understand is what you're talking about.
First, I would not call this an "review audit". At least not if one believes that the definition of "audit" is:
planned and documented activity performed by qualified personnel to determine by investigation, examination, or evaluation of objective evidence, the adequacy and compliance with established procedures, or applicable documents, and the effectiveness of implementation. (Source: Wikipedia.)
Like most things on SE, the described feature is a gamification device, where the objective of the game is to match, as close as possible, a known outcome.
To take the case of Reopen votes, the description says that this will test the gamers ability to correctly call:
a question which the system has determined should be open or closed based on various criteria (highly-voted with no close votes, quickly closed with no answers, etc).
There is at least three ways to play this game:
One can carefully review the question, and try to decide whether it should stay closed or be re-opened, based upon one's best objective analysis.
One can look for patterns in the phrasing of the question known to trigger a knee jerk response from a sizeable portion of the community (present company not excepted) and try to match that pattern.
One can press "Skip" whenever one faces a review that actually requires careful analysis (as opposed to a knee jerk response).
I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to work out which of the three strategies outlined above that shall yield the highest benefit/cost to the individual game player, given that the objective of this game is to avoid suspension of privileges.
Personally, I think that the optimum individual gaming strategy leads to the least desirable outcome for the DA community.