NB: this post has been edited in the light of @quid's comment revealing all moderator messages link to a text that explicitly contradicts MSE's deletion policies, without disclosing the latter in any form. (They didn't even correct my misconception when I repeatedly stated it in private communication with them.) Whether that would be changeable at the MSE or SE/SO level, consider that a feature request originating in this edit. At the very least (which would be easier), meta posts on enforcement politcies such as EoQS should be edited to explain the real process. As for the effects of the present edit, they are perhaps smaller than @quid might have expected.
I wish the main community well; but, as a result of the EoQS, I have reluctantly decided I can no longer actively participate in it, at least when it comes to writing answers. I hope in sharing why I can help prevent math.se losing any valuable contributors, regardless of whether I was ever one of them. (Reasons I may not have been are part of the topic here; I did get one comment implying otherwise, but in any case they all predate EoQS.)
Some of you may have noticed I have emerged from a brief account suspension. Before you comment or answer, bear in mind I take full responsibility for everything that happened. I was contacted about a month ago to advise me I violated the policies EoQS enforces, and I briefly discussed with the moderators how I can improve my behaviour. For a while, I felt I'd turned around, but it turns out it wasn't good enough.
We had another brief discussion as a result of this suspension, in which I said how I might do better this time. But now I've had some time to rethink the feasibility of that. Based on my past failure, I am no longer confident I can inculcate all the good-question criteria in my procedures because, even if I explicitly consider them for every question, apparently I miss a lot. At this rate, I will suffer recurrent exponentially growing suspensions, potentially long enough to be account deletion in all but name.
During suspensions, I cannot reply to comments or address their constructive criticism in a well-deserved edit. Nor is anything else one can do for the good of MSE - the power to edit others' posts, to comment, to serve in the review queue, maybe even to ask a good question once in a blue moon - available during a suspension. Suspension is also (at least for me) an embarrassing, humiliating, undignified experience, as was the original moderator contact. (It doesn't help that numbers in their URLs make clear just how rarely they have to intervene.)
So, since anyone who answers often enough (my authoring of answers remained frequent but less so than previously after the first discussion with moderators), with my flaws, will come short sometimes, I need to quit it altogether. (If I "fall off the wagon" in that respect, please don't crow over it; even if it happens sometimes, I will be answering far less frequently than before, which would - in some users' case, possibly including mine - be a net loss to the site.)
No matter how many times people like me read the same two or three links, we won't realize all the implications of them; we will infer false negatives. Every example brought to my attention so far, while it made sense after explanation, was a genuine shock, something that had slipped through despite a conscious effort not to make such mistakes, a question I'd convinced myself was appropriate to answer because (insert thinking here).
I feel such mistakes need to provide quicker, individual lessons, more numerously than they currently do. Therefore, I have already suggested to the moderators that users could be made aware of violations much sooner, through automatic acknowledgement of per-answer flags (kept anonymous, of course), without extra work for moderators, though it would involve a one-off cost to the developers. Through that route or otherwise, I'm sure EoQS can still work in some form very close to the one originally announced.
Good luck, everybody.