The rejection message states "This edit defaces the post in order to promote a product or service, or is deliberately destructive."
My edit absolutely did not deface the post or promote any product or service... so presumably the claim is that it was deliberately destructive? Yet I don't see how a reviewer could come to that conclusion. My edit was not deliberately destructive. It was a good-faith attempt to improve the answer in numerous small ways -- as explained in my edit comment. I thought the original answer had some great ideas, but had some issues that made it harder than necessary to understand those ideas. My edit was an attempt to make those ideas clearer for readers. And, just to be clear, I don't believe my edit changed the meaning of the post or deviated from the author's intent.
So, can anyone help me understand why my edit was rejected? Was the rejection appropriate?
I'm not here to complain. Instead, I'd like to identify what lessons I should learn. I'd be happy to receive any constructive criticisms you might have. Or, if you feel that such edits are not welcome and I should not waste my energy trying to improve answers on this site in this way, that's a fine answer, too. Any and all reactions and constructive advice are welcome.