Q:

Don't include borderline cases in audit

The way the audit system works is basically fine: You can't mindlessly click the buttons to grind the queues, because if you do, you'll be banned sooner or later. 
What I don't agree on is offering borderline situations for audit cases.  I personally failed the audit on https://stackoverflow.com/review/late-answers/8708565, because in my opinion the second part attempts to answer the question.  In reality the answer was downvoted marginally to -1 and has only 2 comments, one discussing the technical aspect and one discussing the quality of the answer.  
The answer can be fine after some minor improvements. 
I personally think the audit should deal with cases that are clearly good or clearly bad, the linked answer is -in my opinion- open for debate and shoudn't have been deleted so easily. 
Edit: While the linked 'duplicate' is helpful in improving my review-skills, it's not about borderline audit cases. 

A:

Audits are picked automatically, and the criteria are designed to select for what appear to be cut and dry cases. 
But like all things automated, that can sometimes go wrong.  What you think is a borderline case, the system thought was cut and dry, because it matched objective criteria (such as only upvotes and no edits, or only spam flags and downvotes, etc.). 
If you come across an audit that you think is borderline, you need to go and teach the system it is borderline.  Downvote it if you think it should not have been upvoted so much.  Vote to close it if you think it is off-topic.  That then gives the system a signal that the post was not so uncontroversial as it thought and stop using it as an audit. 
In your specific case, the post was deleted from review with just one Looks Good vote, and 6 deletion votes; the system thus thought it a good candidate.  For deleted posts it is harder to 'teach' the system; flagging it for moderator attention or bringing it up on meta is then your only option. 
Since this is a 'partial' answer (it is not cut and dry, there is a bit of an answer in there), I've undeleted and re-deleted it to clear it from audit duties, and lifted your review ban.