Let's note this is not an oddball case:

https://secure.phabricator.com/book/phabricator/article/audit/ suggests to create a project to use as subscribers, then an herald rule to add to trigger audit for code committed without a Differential revision attached.

There is a setting (default to false) for auditing your own commits. I don't know if that has any affect here.

/config/edit/audit.can-author-close-audit/

Will give that a try. Thanks for the pointer.

3 main issues. ( Just my thoughts. Feel free to elaborate or ignore)

• It does not seem like audit.can-author-close-audit has any effect.
• The audit requestor should be able to close the audit regardless of the authorship of the commit
• I don't understand what the image below means. In this state, the commit still shows up under "needs audit"

More testing results below. The picture is what I call Audited/Open.

here is a setting (default to false) for auditing your own commits. I don't know if that has any affect here.
/config/edit/audit.can-author-close-audit/

I updated this setting to true. No effect observed.
Also confirmed that one auditor other than the author can close the audit. Not sure what effect this setting has.

Did some more testing.
Summary: this is all with audit.can-author-close-audit=true Assuming we have users A and B who are both in the #reviewers project

It does not seem like there is a way for the author to close the audit, wether they requested it or not.

The same problem here. I have a lot of 'pending' audits because I did the commit and audited it. They have an accepted label in audit list, but 'partially audited' if I open the audit. It happens also if I'm the only member in the project that is needed to audit.

There is a similar discussion in T7676.