The fix was edited into the accepted solution, which was rejected during peer review. It seems unlikely that the peer review involved any testing of the validity of the edits. The reason given for rejection appears to have been purely pro-forma.
I saw, but did not take any action on, your second suggested edit. My opinion was "well, this might well all be true, but I don't think much of the tone. I'll let this be someone else's problem".
As to what did eventually happen to your suggested edits, as the faq says,
What is reputation?
Reputation is a rough measurement of how much the community trusts
you; it is earned by convincing your peers that you know what you’re
When you come along with three days of membership and no more than the starting amount of rep, it's not particularly likely that peer review of your suggested edits will necessarily involve rigorous testing of the change; and (as might be learned from experience of suggesting edits), nearly all rejections of suggested edits will be with reasons that are "purely pro-forma", because the volume of suggested edits is such that it's impractical to do much more.
None of the answers here are offered with any warranty or guarantee as to fitness; therefore it's not really surprising that no major fire alarm was instituted when mistake was reported to have been discovered in one. There's no SLA here, or response time guarantees, or anything like that: just a bunch of volunteers who, like any group of humans, sometimes make mistakes.
 I'm allowed to think like this, because I'm a volunteer