Consider this situation:

1. There's a question that needs more work by OP. (For example MCVE missing.) So you vote to close.
2. OP makes the necessary changes (for example adds the MCVE), so technically the question can be reopened...
3. ...but it's written in a crappy way, poorly worded and formatted, so you edit to make some improvements before you vote to reopen.

I think such situation is not unusual, not an artificial example. And it's a perfectly legit way to get the hat.

Consider this situation:

1. There's a question that needs more work by OP. For example MCVE is missing -> only OP can add that in an edit -> so you vote to close.

2. OP makes the necessary changes (adds the MCVE), so technically the question can be reopened...

3. ...but it's written in a crappy way, poorly worded and formatted, so you edit to make some improvements, and then you vote to reopen.

I think this is a pretty common situation, not an artificial example. And it's a perfectly legit way to get the hat!

Also note that it's perfectly reasonable to wait for the user's edit before further improving the question. If OP never makes the edit, then the post may never be eligible to reopen, so there's no point trying to improve it.

A missing MCVE is just one example. On Code Review, sometimes users post broken code, which is off-topic, but often fixable. Or OP has working code, but instead of including it in the question, OP just links to an off-site resource. We cannot copy-paste ourselves into the question, because posting the content on Stack Exchange implies consent to the site license, so it really has to be the OP to do that. Once the post is fixed, it can be reopened.

Surely there are many other examples that could trigger the above legitimate sequence of events.

Consider this situation:

1. There's a question that needs more work by OP. (For example MCVE missing.) So you vote to close.
2. OP makes the necessary changes (for example adds the MCVE), so technically the question can be reopened...
3. ...but it's written in a crappy way, poorly worded and formatted, so you make some improvements and vote to reopen.

I consider this fairly common to happen, not a tortured example. And it's a perfectly legit way to get the hat.

Consider this situation:

1. There's a question that needs more work by OP. (For example MCVE missing.) So you vote to close.
2. OP makes the necessary changes (for example adds the MCVE), so technically the question can be reopened...
3. ...but it's written in a crappy way, poorly worded and formatted, so you edit to make some improvements before you vote to reopen.

I think such situation is not unusual, not an artificial example. And it's a perfectly legit way to get the hat.