When I review pending edits, I occasionally see edits to answers that are correct. These edits don't make the questions wrong, per se, and might even add some useful information. But I tend to reject such edits on the grounds that if the poster wanted to include that information, he would have. That is, the edits put words in the poster's mouth. It'd be better, in my opinion, if such changes were proposed in the comments, and then they could be added (or not) at the poster's discretion.
I tend to waver between "invalid edit," "radical change" and "too minor" when choosing a reason for rejecting such edits. (Yes, I'm aware the last two are just a bit contradictory. But if the edit's not correcting any real issues, it's not worthy of an edit, in my opinion.) But considering the frequency with which I'm seeing such edits lately, I was wondering whether there's a standard reason I should be using. Or, perhaps, whether such a reason needs to be added.