The point of the Stack Exchange is to provide actionable suggestions for resolving the specific challenges querents face, in a system that sorts itself for easy reference so we become an organised collection of solutions to problems.
This is why we don't change someone else's question to artificially broaden its scope: not only is it horribly pretentious to think we understand a challenge better than the person who has it, but the generalisation usually reduces the value of the contribution to the Stack.
Years of experience have shown that answers to specific questions are often also useful to people with similar but not identical situations. The better an answer explains the reasoning behind its specific solution, the more broadly its principles can be applied.
That same experience repeatedly demonstrates that answers to artificially broadened questions are rarely actionably useful to the person asking the question because they can't address the details of the situation. They can't provide solutions to the specific challenge being faced, they can only provide broad principles that may or may not actually be helpful to the querent. Those situations often wind up with every answer getting a comment from the querent saying "Okay, but in my situation [edge case or exception which renders answer useless]."