Description

Currently there are two independent code paths for a decision that's made to take down an add-on if it's taken via the reviewer tools, or taken via Cinder. Mainly because the reviewer tools carries out the action first; then logs the decision with Cinder; whereas a Cinder originated decision (obviously) has already logged the the decision; then we carry out the action.
It also allowed one workflow to be developed without considering - or regressing - the other workflow. But the duplication is a net negative in mature code, and means that implementing new features means double the engineering effort. We should bit the bullet and refactor the differences away

Acceptance Criteria

Checks

• If I have identified that the work is specific to a repository, I have removed "repository:addons-server" or "repository:addons-frontend"

┆Issue is synchronized with this Jira Task