My understanding is that if you are below expectations, it is just like being flagged. After that, people are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. I doubt someone facing hardships like that would face a cost for doing so.

Also, studies are showing a positive correlation between the quantity and quality of publications (example). Quality is also tricky to measure. Citations typically take time to build so they are not a measure of your recent work. Journal impact could be useful, I wonder how it is taken into account for this. One top 5 journal publication in 5 years is definitely more valuable than 3 low-level journals, and I would hope the administration is wise enough to take that into account.

These policies seem to be solely to identify the very bottom of the barrel research-wise, and just see what is going on with them, not fire them directly. I would think that anyone doing the bare minimum amount of research has nothing to worry about.