Some guidance is associated to suggested edit rejection reasons.
This guidance is shown to reviewers and to the original author alike. But reviewers and editors don't need the same kind of input: reviewers need guidance to make the determination as to whether an edit falls under a rejection reason, while editors need guidance to explain why the edit is wrong.
For some rejection reasons, the same guidance text is fine, but others would benefit from different guidance. For example:
- Title: attempt to reply
- Guidance to reviewers: This edit an attempt to reply to or comment on the existing post.
- Guidance to the editor (for a question): To request some clarification or improvement from the author of the question, leave a comment under the question. If you want to provide a solution, use the answer box at the bottom of the page.
- Guidance to the editor (for an answer): To request some clarification from the author or provide constructive criticism, leave a comment under the answer. If you want to provide an alternative solution, use the answer box at the bottom of the page.
- Guidance to the editor (for an answer, if the editor is the asker): To request some clarification from the author or provide constructive criticism, leave a comment under the answer. To add additional information about your problem, edit your question.
In this case, reviewers don't need to be given hyper-detailed guidance as to when to edit vs when to answer vs when to comment. On the other hand, editors who fall afoul of this reason are often new to Stack Exchange and need guidance that's as tailored as possible.
See also Provide more in-line guidance to suggested edit reviewers for a discussion of additional guidance for reviewers.
The same may apply to close reasons: everyone needs to know what the close reason means, but beyond that close voters need additional guidance to indicate whether the close reason apply, while authors need guidance as to how they might improve their question to make it reopenable.