This question was quickly closed (and rightfully so) as unclear. The poster then clarified in comments. I edited the question to include the poster's comments. The question is no longer as unclear (it's arguable clear enough to get an answer, at least) and would not need to be on hold for that reason any more.
The reasons for it being put on hold were, in my opinion, addressed. That suggests the question should be reopened. However, if it were to be reopened it would probably be closed again for minimal-understanding.
My question is: Is there anything to gain from voting to reopen a question that has been updated to resolve the original close reason, but still has multiple other, different issues remaining?
This example may not have been the best because in this case, the OP's question was answered to his satisfaction in the comments. We move on, no harm done. But for other questions where the answer is not so straightforward and not quickly provided in comments, what's the best way to handle this?