Here's one reason: your question as stated is nonsense.
The only "authoritative source " that gives a "comprehensive" explanation of "the exception guarantees given by STL containers" is the Standard for Programming Language C++. That's it. The information you want is there, as this is the fundamental, authoritative source which defines how C++ and its standard libraries work.
Or to put it another way, if it's not there, it does not exist.
Your question is essentially "I read the standard but I can't understand it." And while we can interpret the standard, the only correct answer to your question as asked is the standard, which you read and dismissed.
Your question thus becomes unanswerable because you removed the only correct answer from the list of possible answers. It's like saying, "I want the authoritative standard for US laws, but you can't actually use the laws themselves," or "I want the definitive source for this scientific principle, but you can't show me actual peer-reviewed papers or research."
It's a negative tautology: you assume that the only correct answer is wrong. Since the only correct answer is not a legitimate answer to your question, you have rendered your question unanswerable. Therefore, the question is "not constructive."
Also, your question is a "link me to documentation" question, not a "tell me how this works" question. The former are also "not constructive."