I just had the unpleasant experience of reviewing this question, where this close review was an audit to see if I was "paying attention."
I was about to vote to close, but then I noticed that only one close vote had been cast and it was for the reason of being "too broad," a clearly nonsensical choice. This made me suspect I had an audit review on my hands. For the audit review, the question being considered showed up as having zero upvotes/downvotes; I decided to click the hyperlink to investigate. Sure enough, the actual page for the question showed the question as having five upvotes, something I took to mean I should vote to "leave open." Thus, I passed the audit, but the obvious correct decision was to vote to close as off-topic (no work shown, no context, etc.).
What is one to do about this? I understand how some questions, such as exceedingly difficult integrals, can be upvoted quite a bit without much context because everyone knows just how hard the integral is to solve and a correct solution would be valuable. But this is different--a reviewer is effectively being admonished for making the correct decision. After failing such an audit (unreasonable audits have happened to me before), I know I can go back to the question being considered and vote to close or open, but this does not seem like a satisfactory solution.
Is there anything that can be done about this fairly frequent problem?