Based on questions like Medix2's, Medix2's other question, and my earlier one, there is a big disconnect between the historical guidance for supporting subjective answers and what the community likes/expects/wants.
My original question about how to back up was specifically for addressing this. I felt that there was a clear expectation on how to back up subjective answers based on earlier questions but noticed community pushback on it. When Mxy answered with a largely reproduced answer (but also supplemented with additional very helpful guidance) and then it was closed as a duplicate of the earlier metas on how to back up subjective, it seemed clear that community did agree this had been asked and answered previously.
But with the recent slew of questions and responses about backing up subjective, it seems like it is not clear at all.
I'm not sure which questions need to be reopened (if any), or really how to approach dealing with it. But it does seems like there is vocal percentage of the community who believes that the guidance to date is incomplete with regard to assessing subjective support.
It also seems like there hasn't been a clear direction given in how to address assessing support in that case. I don't think "it seems like they know what they're talking about" is sufficient. But I do want to understand other ways of assessing if they are available.
How do we clarify this? How should we be approaching this? What questions should be new vs needing new answers to old questions?