Question: I was reviewing a bit and ran into a bad answer. Usually I open the question to see it within context (I know this is not the supposed course of action) and so I did.  

The bad answer I was reviewing wasn't there anymore, it apparently had been deleted. I went back to the review page and tried to edit the answer to make sure it was deleted, and I got a blank page saying it was a deleted post.

In view of all this I clicked 'no action needed' as no action was needed.

And I got the following message:

> 
> STOP! Look and Listen.
> 
> 
> This was an audit, designed to see if you were paying attention. You didn't pass. This post was of very poor quality, and needed significant improvements to be useful – passing over such posts hurts the ability of others to find and answer good questions. Please try to fix such posts by editing, downvoting, closing, or flagging as "very low quality".
> 
> 
> Don't worry, we've already handled this post appropriately – but please take a minute to look it over closely, keeping in mind the guidance above.
> 
> 
> 

Am I incurring any sort of penalty with what just happened? In my opinion I reviewed correctly. No action was needed.

I find this a bit offensive, to be honest. I am reasonably careful while reviewing and most of my reviews are actually 'skip'.

Answer: 
Regardless of the practical consequences (or lack thereof) of your actions, there's one part of your complaint that I agree with:

> 
> I find this a bit offensive, to be honest.
> 
> 
> 

It is! It's an unnecessarily sanctimonious phrasing in a message from a system that is known to have false positives on a semi-regular basis. The context in which this message is presented is basically, "that thing I just asked you to do for the good of the community out of a mutual trust and understanding? Yeah, that thing was actually a complete waste of your time, and not only that, *you wasted your time incorrectly*".

It wouldn't do any harm to phrase the subsequent complaint on the presumption of innocence: the guilty users *know* they are guilty, and the innocent users already have the timewasting and mistrust to be affronted by without also heaping injustice and hurt pride on top of that.

(Sorry that this is a bit off-topic, but I felt the need to help legitimise your personal response, because it does kind of sound like you've been insulted here.)
I have seen one such test edit. It was so obvious to reject it. May be they can one day train their SW to send less and less obviously bad edits? May be the software can eventually do good edits? [When that happens!](http://xkcd.com/810/)