I think the question's fine and on topic.

The person has a concrete problem they're focused on: they've identified a rule, and they don't understand the function of the rule such that it exists. They're asking us, the experts, to explain what this rule is here to do. And the experts have answered, outlining for us the practical problem that occurs in gameplay in the absence of this rule that its existence addresses.

In our FAQ for asking about designer intent, we're directed to a different way to ask questions about intent: “What impact will it have on the game if this rule is changed in this way?” Well, this question's functionally asking this: what impact would it have on the game if the rule was gone, and thus, why is it there? It worked well and received good answers.

Yes, the question also prompts for designer explanations. I believe this is an entirely secondary, tangential prompt as one potential angle for seeking an answer to their primary question, which remains: what's this rule here for? That follow-up question doesn't need to be there because it's not remotely core to the question and is getting it targeted for closure incorrectly, and it was in fact removed a short while after this meta question was opened (based on conversation in chat) but has since been put back.

What I don't get is why that secondary question is what we're looking at so intently. Earlier today we received another question: How do you teach someone else how to play D&D?. It was asking how to introduce someone to D&D. It did so by asking what videos or so on we should show the player. This would get it closed for resource recommendation. We can tell plainly however this is not the main thrust of the question or the person's problem—they just want to introduce someone to the game. So I updated the question to ask that part out loud:

I want to teach this person a basic grasp of the game, and let the rest of us fill in gaps as they come up. How can I teach them this? Are there any helpful resources, online guides, videos I ought to give this person for example?

The question's open, doing well, and has received several good answers guiding this person on introducing a new player to the game. We didn't close it as a resource recommendation, and still aren't, despite the fact it includes a request for resource recommendations, because we can tell it's a good clear on-topic question and the resource recommendation is entirely secondary. (I didn't make this edit to sneakily make a point, either, to be clear—I just made this edit because it's what the question needed, and now hours later while writing this answer noticed the parallel.)

I think in closing Why do characters with a high prime requisite gain bonus XP? as a designer reasons question we're doing ourselves a disservice. It's clearly worked well, and there's something for us to learn about how this question got structured such that it worked. There's no problem we're solving in closing it. I don't think closing it is following the spirit or the letter of the law in any fashion, it's just ... a perfectly fine question. Leave it open.

I think the question's fine and on topic.

The person has a concrete problem they're focused on: they've identified a rule, and they don't understand the function of the rule such that it exists. They're asking us, the experts, to explain what this rule is here to do. And the experts have answered, outlining for us the practical problem that occurs in gameplay in the absence of this rule that its existence addresses.

In our FAQ for asking about designer intent, we're directed to a different way to ask questions about intent: “What impact will it have on the game if this rule is changed in this way?” Well, this question's functionally asking this: what impact would it have on the game if the rule was gone, and thus, why is it there? It worked well and received good answers.

Yes, the question also prompts for designer explanations. I believe this is an entirely secondary, tangential prompt as one potential angle for seeking an answer to their primary question, which remains: what's this rule here for? That follow-up question doesn't need to be there because it's not remotely core to the question and is getting it targeted for closure incorrectly, and it was in fact removed a short while after this meta question was opened (based on conversation in chat) but has since been put back.

What I don't get is why that secondary question is what we're looking at so intently. Earlier today we received another question: How do you teach someone else how to play D&D?. It was asking how to introduce someone to D&D. It did so by asking what videos or so on we should show the player. This would get it closed for resource recommendation. We can tell plainly however this is not the main thrust of the question or the person's problem—they just want to introduce someone to the game. So I updated the question to ask that part out loud:

I want to teach this person a basic grasp of the game, and let the rest of us fill in gaps as they come up. How can I teach them this? Are there any helpful resources, online guides, videos I ought to give this person for example?

The question's open, doing well, and has received several good answers guiding this person on introducing a new player to the game. We didn't close it as a resource recommendation, and still haven't, despite the fact it includes a request for resource recommendations, because we can tell it's a good clear on-topic question and the resource recommendation is entirely secondary. (I didn't make this edit to sneakily make a point, either, to be clear—I just made this edit because it's what the question needed, and now hours later while writing this answer noticed the parallel.)

I think in closing Why do characters with a high prime requisite gain bonus XP? as a designer reasons question we're doing ourselves a disservice. It's clearly worked well, and there's something for us to learn about how this question got structured such that it worked. There's no problem we're solving in closing it. I don't think closing it is following the spirit or the letter of the law in any fashion, it's just ... a perfectly fine question. Leave it open.