There's something that is really bothering me about this post so I feel like I must post this.
You have stated the numbers: 118 bans from failing review audits and 2118 manually banned. You also mention that you personally ban an average of 200 reviewers per day. You also mentioned that you are the only moderator who is handling this issue.
This tells me that you are personally responsible for a significant portion of the 2118 people who were manually banned. Now personally I think moderators are all smart and hard working people (your dedication to this cause does outline this as well), so having this in mind I think the fact that you are the only moderator who manually adds so many bans per day means that there really is no consensus about whether or not there actually is a problem. If there was consensus then those 200 (or more) would uniformly come from multiple moderators if others also felt that the bans were warranted.
I don't think you can make the argument that the triage queue needs fixing based on the number of reviewers banned. This is because you have personally ensured the number of reviewers banned follows your argument instead of the other way around. In addition, given the number of bans it is now impossible for anyone to audit each ban and determine whether or not they were really warranted and are genuine or might be over-reacting or unwarranted. The number of bans seems to be central to your premise but however is not admissible because of this reason. The link to the search for triage related issues has more complains about unfair bans that it does about the triage actually need fixing which might indicate that the number of bans are high because of over-banning.
Now don't take this as a personal attack against you as a person, I don't know you nor do I have anything personal against you. But it exactly because I don't know you that I feel that this is a critique that needs to be made. Now I'm sure this will not really get much attention and will probably also get a lot of negative feedback but I think it would be a mistake to not take it into consideration.