A : HOW can anyone "understand whatever expected way" reading whatever "formally established" document "officially stating that authors shouldn't" use one in particular ?
I can accept, comply, obey... or any other verb of that lexical field but... understand ? Well ! Surely not !
B : Why should such a constraint be enforced by whatever official document ?
If evidence (such as the one that could produce the necessity to benefit from advanced editing facilities) is not enough to convince the author to re-edit the question then there is no reason for a priori & arbitrarily depriving this author (AND the commentator being replied to as well) from the unique advantage commenting offers :
Having the commentator being replied to advised that some message is awaiting in its inbox.
I must personally acknowledge that when I ask for more information about a question, I appreciate being advised when some answer (to my comment) has been posted.
C : We could also mention consequency. Because official statements must preserve consequency.
If, for some somber reason I ignore (and regret as much), anyone on SE needs more credit for commenting than for asking some question, it must consequently mean that... comments are more creditable than questions !
Then why should anyone resort to less creditable ways for answering ?
Of course this last argument is purely rhetorical. But it should be understood in the context of official documents.
You find it just absurd ? (me too) but... it is only logic. If what I wrote sounds absurd (like sounding absurd...;-) ) it must mean the first proposition (needing more credits to comment than to question) is absurd.
D : Ultimately, why should we need any additional arbitrary rule telling us what we should do ?
Can't we just expect contributors to learn by themself from their own experience how they can optimize their questions/answers ratio. (provided they care of course)
Provide tools, not policy !