I just saw that the question was marked as a duplicate and was just about to post a similar question one here.
No, in my opinion, you are not off-base in thinking that your question is significantly different enough to not be a duplicate. I understand that in many cases where the best answer to a particular question basically boils down to "use this tool" and that there is value in directing all those questions to a single canonical question even if there is some semantic difference in the questions. In fact I myself flagged a question as a duplicate today because ultimately the most viable answer was "use auditd" (for logging all commands).
At the other end of the spectrum there are various tools which are too complex for it to be helpful just to give a answer of "use this tool, here are the basics". There are many examples of this. One which comes up at most, if not every day is usage of sed. There are multiple ways to use this tool, yet many test processing questions (often specifically asking for a sed solution) result in an answer using its replace feature. These are not marked as dupes, and I believe rightly so because this feature is sufficiently complicated that it is unhelpful to point them all to a single "how can I replace text?" question and disallow specific answers.
Another example mentioned by the OP is rsync. There are many nuances to consider when crafting a script to backup files, even if it has already been decided to use a particular tool first. I think it is necessary to consider these questions carefully on their semantics rather than whether they contain "rsync" and "backup".
While usage of inotifywait is considerably less complicated than rsync and sed, I still think there is enough nuance in its usage to warrant different questions answers showing this. For one, the question was about monitoring a directory rather than a specific file. Also in that it required a continuous process rather than the one off process given in the chosen answer to the other question.
The answer I gave I think also adds value in showing inotifywait usage and shell syntax that may not be obvious to a beginner looking to do the same thing. This would be not only irrelevant, but incorrect if used in an answer to the other question. I think the question should ultimately be left open for anyone who comes up with a better idea, as great as I think the answer is :)
From a wider perspective I think this highlights a flaw in the system. Every time someone flags the question as a duplicate, this is a vote to mark it as such. What the system lacks is any way to vote that you don't think this is the case (which would obviously have been my vote). Currently in borderline cases like this, whether or not the question is closed relates more to the volume of traffic it receives. If enough people visit it, then eventually enough will flag it as a duplicate even if the majority of people who look at the duplicate link don't think so. If people can vote both ways, then the result would better reflect the balance of opinion.
Also looking for similar questions to this, it probably wouldn't be unreasonable to mark this one as a dupe... some irony in that I think.
rsynccount as a duplicate of some other question answered with anrsyncsolution?syslogif possible, here I think it would actually benefit from an answer for othersyslogimplementations.