I don't understand. Can you cite a few examples?
Are you saying Apple should give a pass to some app publishers and not vet/screen their apps for meeting Apple's security/privacy standards? And instead just trust them?
No pass needed - nobody is/should be above the rules.
As an example, me as a publisher have had apps on the store for years - you have a track record of what was submitted/approved/rejected and a history of reports made against your apps (or, in an ideal case, no reports made against your apps).
That reputation system exists already in some way, you don't need to get your apps re-evaluated from scratch when you update them as if they are entirely new and/or as if it's the first time you publish apps.
What I'm asking for is common sense and consistency when you have a solid track record to not get your updates randomly rejected for weird reasons - flag me stuff that cause issues, work with me, don't just reject my update because someone over there deems some text that's been in the app for ages to be problematic out of the blue.
Oh did I mention that the reason for rejecting my update is not clearly explained to make sure I know what to fix in order to not suffer more delays in updating my app?
It's happened a few times where it's something along the lines of "goes against the rules for requesting access to location" - yes there are rules for requesting and using location, we know them by heart at this point, but what's suddently an issue with what I do when it wasn't a problem before isn't clear.
And this shouldn't happen with vetted publishers - unless there's proper communication on upcoming changes for us to adjust and remain compliant. But Apple doesn't do that, they don't care known/vetted publishers suffer random setbacks like that.