I am a member of History SE whose "day job" has suddenly forced me to look hard at programming.
I have had (approved) edits on questions like this and this. The gist of these questions were "Why is protocol X preferred to protocol Y?" Such questions are usually closed (in their original form), because they are "broad" and therefore too "opinion based," and subjective to be suitable for the site.
I have gone about editing one or two such questions by (re-)asking, what did people think historically, when they chose X over Y.
Edit: Going forward, I would ask for "records" (corporate minutes, pitchbooks, essays in professional journals, etc.) about what did the "decision makers" (as opposed to random people) think historically, when they chose X over Y. "Choosing" (as opposed to preferring), implies "decision making," but maybe I didn't make that clear.
This substantially narrows the question, because the choices, (and often the reasons), are a matter of historical record, rather than user opinion. All other things being equal, such a change makes a question more objective.
Does this constitute enough of a improvement for formerly closed questions to be re-opened? I, for one, would find even a discussion of historical rationales for choices helpful. More to the point, would it make sense for me (and others) to go around making these changes to improve the quality of the site?