I may have misinterpreted this line then.
Which is very well possible, as I was confused by its self contradictory nature. Nodes that behave in a wrong/unknown way are detected through incorrect audit (or repair) responses. And the “they get suspended first” suggested an order of sorts.
After your response I’m guessing your intention was to say that nodes that don’t have critical audit failures, yet fail with unknown errors get suspended. And the “first” was referring to that eventually if the node never recovers it gets disqualified as well.
I agree on that part, I’ve suggested something similar elsewhere. The idea was to very quickly suspend the node to protect data and start repair and then be slightly more lenient with permanent DQ by allowing the node more chances to respond to the same audit. I’ll try to find the link.
Edit: Got some of the details wrong, it’s been a while, but here it is. Tuning audit scoring - #52 by BrightSilence
Please note that the suggestion is in context of the topic which had suggestions to stabilize the scores as well. The numbers in this post assume those suggestions are picked up in addition to the suggested suspension/disqualification change.