A video taken down, then found on review – twice – to have been taken down in error, then on the third review to have been taken down correctly, where the video in question is definitely not violating the policy it's under review for. I'm curious what sort of review procedure could lead to this sequence of events. Why would Youtube invest enough resources to evaluate a video four times, but do it so poorly?

It seems to indicate a lack of communication in each review of how thoroughly the video was evaluated. By the third time round, there should have been a note attached saying something along the lines of "I watched this entire video looking for keygens, patchers, or anything that might be a circumvention. There are none. This is a legitimate review of the product in question and nothing more."