I've edited in a 'meta-comment' into this question, which was rolled back by a moderator:
Note: answer accepted for sake of closing the question, though parts remain unanswered, and will be explored in followup(s): Q1
Comment's self-explanatory: the accepted answer is not fully satisfactory to the question's intent. I proceeded to make followups, effectively 'breaking up' the question in parts, to keep the format SE-friendly. This is, however, an important caveat for the reader of the Q&A to be informed of. Without meta-commentary, the question's author must ask the answerer to edit in this piece of information - which is an overhead complication, and not guaranteed to work.
"Ask a more focused question" - I did, or at least I thought I did; if physics has a recurring theme, it's that answers may beg more questions. If I were the reader of the linked Q&A, I'd be completely unsatisfied - and a directly linked followup would be the most effective means of filling the gaps.
Clarification per requests:
- It's not accepted - I unaccepted it after a moderator unrolled my edit
- Why accept if not suitable? - Answer is 'sufficient' given scope focus requirements of an SE question, yet incomplete if moving aside any 'regulations'
- Why "for sake of closing"? - To 'move on' to more suitable followups; this one wasn't likely to progress further.
Edit: maybe it's inobvious, but as-is, not all metacommentary is censored; this question references and comments about multiple other Q&A's, and so do many others. My request thus isn't to nullify a rule, but to merely expand its scope.