I proposed two (very similar) edits to this answer and both were rejected in a close 3:2 vote. This is all fair enough (I don't want to dispute the vote), but I find it curious that in both cases, all rejecting reviewers selected the same reason.
The question that came to my mind is: Did the reviewers independently come to the same conclusion, or can they see each others reviews?
Just in case someone wants to look at the concrete proposals which lead to this question, here is what happened:
First, I wanted to just change the backticks to
$(...), but the system rejected the change as too minor. So I looked for other things to change, tried various things and eventually decided that it would be better to not have the explanatory comments as part of the code block. Since the edit was messed up at this point in time, I started over and proposed this change - forgetting about the originally intended backtick change. It got rejected with three "original meaning or intent of the post would be lost" votes. I assumed that this was because of the "parameter must be" wording, which was kind of incorrect: the parameter can also be an absolute or non-normalized path, and the script still works. So I tried a second change avoiding this mistake (and including the backtick change), on which three reviewers agreed that it is "incorrect or an attempt to reply to or comment".