I just wrote the comment:
This question asks about decisions made within the US government and so can have a factual answer. Insta-closing prevents such answers from being written. I am not confident that the close-voters have read the question carefully before clicking and moving on. Note that none of them left a comment, question, or recommendation of how to improve the question.
below the question Has the Gateway-before-boots sequence been chosen for growth of the space industry and the US economy?
The reason for the hold that SE generates is:
but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise.
That's simply not so in this case.
Without a single comment from any of them, I can't see any modifications to make that would address the hold. So I'd like to ask for help with theories on their reasons, and suggestions how to proceed to edit the question to make it even clearer that factual answers are possible when it comes to public space policy. There are articles, documents, websites about the Gateway written by government officials. There are facts.
Why is the US building a Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway (LOP-G)? is well received, and yet seems to ask for answers that formulate their own reasons. I can't see how my question is primarily opinion based while simultaneously this one isn't.