Normally I like requirements spelled out, but in this case, I think there should not be a requirement. There can be all sorts of reasons for the suggestions not addressed by a PM.
To be fair, we have many more types of errors now than we used to. I had my extended list of 20,000 people down to fewer than 100 errors (took two years of work). Now I can only see the suggestions for 10,000 people and there are over 1,000 "errors". Profile completeness because a box isn't checked, unique names (of which there were many in the 1600 and 1700's), link errors (often for sources I have no knowledge of and technology I am not interested in), and my personal favorite: Separators in locations (i.e., non-breaking space, which I have tried to correct a dozen times and never have the right solution). It can be overwhelming, even to me who wants to clear errors and has enjoyed being a data doctor. These days I focus on truly substantive errors like multiple marriages, incorrect relationships, etc. It now seems more productive to add new people, add dates, children, sources. Please accept that some of the reasons people don't like to work their error list is of our own making. So we shouldn't require people to address all the possible ideas that could be thought of.