Elimination of bizarre rejection reasons

Kawhinot-ING

We all get rejections that make zero sense, according to the reason in the email. Can you confirm how the rejection reasons are populated into the email? Are they the 3 most frequent reasons? In order of quantity by each reason?

Is there any way that a strange isolated rejection that makes no sense (i.e. a building is rejected for being a natural feature, a perfectly ordinary safe point of interest is rejected for being a sensitive location, etc.) are somehow thrown out of the tabulation in figuring out the final adjudication? I guess it would be similar to a judged sport like diving or figure skating where the lowest score is thrown out?

And as a subset, is there anyway to identify any specific reviewers who are constantly giving out bizarre reasons (which are just simply wrong) and provide with some type of warning or potential suspension if their strange reviewing patterns continue? I find it really hard to believe that people are just hitting the wrong rejection reason during the review. It should also curtail the behavior of those who just hit any rejection reason for the sake of speeding through the review or for getting an agreement as fast as possible.