While the change is easily verifiable the edit was rejected with the notations:
This edit deviates from the original intent of the post. Even edits that must make drastic changes should strive to preserve the goals of the post's owner.
This edit was intended to address the author of the post and makes no sense as an edit. It should have been written as a comment or an answer.
I strongly disagree with both of these points. The first that it was only a minor edit, and to suggest that it deviates from the original intent would be suggesting that the original intent of the post was to intentionally mislead its readers. I think that's an extremely unfair assumption of the author's intent. It was a minor edit to fix a minor error, which is stated as appropriate in the help center.
- To fix grammar and spelling mistakes
- To clarify the meaning of the post (without changing that meaning)
- To include additional information only found in comments, so all of the information relevant to the post is contained in one place
- To correct minor mistakes or add updates as the post ages
- To add related resources or hyperlinks
For the second case seems totally out of left field, my edit was not directed at the author. I provided enough context and sourcing for edit reviewer could (without the game files themselves) verify that this small portion of the answer was incorrect. A comment to correct a minor error is pointless. Edits like these are why we have peer editing! It's what make the SE network curated!
Creating a new answer would force me to create an answer that was 95% redundant to the existing accepted answer.
Commenting would force users to read incorrect information and then get it corrected through a comment.
Both of these things are bad for users!