We encountered a scenario where a Herald rule triggered the addition of a blocking reviewer. We discussed with the developer and the blocking reviewer status is no longer needed, but the code still needs to go through a normal code review.
In this scenario, we have no way of removing or resigning a project reviewer from the code review. We can't accept to remove the block because then we'd be accepting the whole review and we don't want to do that since it still has to go through the normal process. Since we have no way to remove the blocking reviewer it means that the developer then has to come back to the blocking reviewer to get them to accept even after the normal process has completed.
We're currently using blocking reviewers to catch things before they enter the code base, so we definitely need the blocking review behaviour (preventing the overall status being accept even after normal review), but we don't necessarily want to block after discussing with the developer and / or original code reviewer.