It is assumed that 50% of the rewards go to curation. But it was invented that you have to pay others to make automation work, so there is manual curation but from automated participation. A curation that is not organic, does not generate interaction. Besides, those reports are not original content, while authors are forbidden to repost, some accounts do it for them.
There are hundreds of accounts doing reports and as you say, some with very little HP, but how can you say no to them if others do the same? it would even look like a monopoly of curation reports in which only the big ones can participate.
I don't see bad a weekly report that brings value with an analysis of why the best ones were selected. But I find the daily reports spammy and that most of the time they get more votes than the original author.
Another problem with this is that many people will see the report as a summary, avoiding to browse the community and interact with the authors, even if they think it is advertising, the reality is that most of them stay in the report.
The solution to this is the beneficiary of the communities. Even so it is more “fair” the “competition” between projects.
I have even seen reports from individuals (not projects, not trails).
Translated with DeepL.com (free version)