Q:

Review ban for not treating this as "spam or offensive"

After some years of doing edit reviews on SO, I managed to get my first review ban for approving this answer as non-low quality. It popped up as one of them review audits.
It may be interesting to have a further look at this errand, as I believe there is nothing wrong with the post and I don't understand why a diamond mod deleted it as "spam or offensive".

The answer posted addresses what the question asks for. It is not some completely unrelated answer, so it is not spam.
The answer is not offensive.
It is not a link-only answer as it contains additional information relevant to the question. 

The only thing that stands out is that it links to a commercial site. But as far as I can tell, using the commercial service may be the correct answer to the question. It seems unlikely that the person who posted the answer has any interest in advertising for that site. 
Is there a SO policy that do not approve with linking commercial content related to the question? If so, shouldn't the edit reviewers be informed about such? (Maybe we were? At least I didn't know of it.) If so, I believe there should exist a different close reason for this?
Or perhaps this is something that's supposed to only concern diamond moderators? And then the blunt, automatic review-audit scripts made it my concern as well?

A:

If you see a brand-new user whose only post is a glowing recommendation for a commercial service, with a link to said service, like this:

be very suspicious about posts like that. To me, even without the other information that I have about this user, that looks like pretty clear spam for a commercial product. 
I don't think "Looks Good" is the proper response to something like this. If you didn't feel comfortable with a full spam flag, at least an "other" one that points out why this is really shady-looking would be the right way to deal with this. Moderators could then look into the user and see if we had clearer evidence that this was a spammer.
This was not the first such incident of spam for this service, and this group from Pakistan has spammed this service across multiple SE sites. You didn't have that context, but even by itself that post should not have been approved. I agree with the audit case here.

