At the risk of you going off on a rail and misinterpreting it, here is the data:
(Most of the data you might want, going beyond this, is also public, in the SEDE. Given that you already know it exist, I don't think it's appropriate to raise this sort of allegation without at least some evidence of having tried to dig into the data.)
The data shows that a strong majority of close-vote reviews end up with question closure. Most reopen reviews end up with a leave-closed outcome.
Here it is important to note that this sort of dumb counting, without actually looking at the posts and whether they warranted closure/reopening or not. Since you do not have access to the queues it is understandable that you do not have a gauge on the typical content there, but the links above give plenty of information of what actually makes it to the queue. In particular, the second conclusion - few questions are reopened in the queue - bears a close match to the experience of reviewing that queue: for example, a significant fraction of questions on the queue are minor edits that barely begin addressing the problems with the post. The fraction that even approaches reopen-ability is rather low.
There is, moreover, one crucial thing missing from the public data: you cannot know the frame of mind of the people who reviewed posts because you cannot know the frame of mind of people, period, and it is not appropriate to raise accusations that could only be proven if you had psychic powers. You stop short of making the explicit accusation that reviewers are not "making an independent decision, without preconceptions", but the implication is pretty clear. This accusation is of this latter kind: you could only prove it by reading minds.
In particular, and to double down on a previous commenta previous comment, I don't think that any amount of public data will support your hypothesis. In particular, consider the following possible explanations for the data:
- Reviewers are by and large a fickle bunch and they tend to just close-vote anything in the review queue because it's there
versus
- Close-vote reviewers and 3k+ users at large have a generally robust consensus of the type of question that is on- and off-topic for the site, which naturally results in consistent reviews, and tends to put only close-worthy questions in the queue to begin with.
(These are, of course, not the only possible explanations.) Both scenarios explain the data, and neither can really be disproved without public data. The lesson I infer from that is that the question was flawed to begin with, but then I suspect I have about a snowball's chance in the door to hell at convincing you of that.
On the other hand, I do want to stress that raising this sort of accusation without data, where you know the data is there, is pretty inflammatory and unconstructive.
