While generally a fine way to look at things, each case is different and may require different ordering and numbers.
But the important thing to me is the expectation that these steps be driven by other cachers, not by reviewers. I'm not sure whether that's what eagsc7 is thinking, but since the thread is about reviewers taking unilateral action, I want to be clear about who should be counting the DNFs and filing the needs maintenance and asking for archival when the time's right. It's not a crime for a reviewer to take action without being asked, but it's the community's job to police problems, not the reviewer's.
Very good point. I have a number of difficult caches. Although I keep an eye on the logs and reply as necessary, I also don't have a lot of geocaches. Some cachers have a large number of difficult caches. The reviewers should not be autodisabling based on a rigid system as outlined by eagsc7 for difficult caches. That sounds like trouble. Why should a maintenance log be entered just because of 2 previous dnfs, and disabled after 5. What if those two dnfs are from inexperienced cachers or the geocache was hard to find. Maybe a group goes by looking and can't be bothered spending much time on the cache because they are on a numbers run. You could get a whole chunk of dnfs all at once. Every case is different. Reviewers shouldn't be disabling caches after 5 dnfs as a blanket rule. That should largely be up to the cache owner to decide.