Sometimes a question is asked to which the answer is posted stating "There is no in-universe answer" (aka "it's a plot hole").
Such answers in and of themselves are OK in general, but as discussed in the following meta post: Usefulness of "Plot hole" answers/comments - they should conform to certain most minimal standards to be good answers:
Most importantly, the answer should be backed up by evidence, in the form of explanation of how the poster arrived at the conclusion "There is no in-universe answer".
It does not need to be anything elaborate, but this site frequently deals with large universes with multitude of works - and frequently author provided extra info; so if one simply states "No answer in universe", there is no way to tell if they just opine without any basis, or if they are an expert familiar with every single work of canon as well as author commentaries.
If the answer does not have incontrovertible proof that there's no in-universe evidence (e.g., an author admitting that; or showing what sources you exaustively searched to confirm), it should not be posted in haste, within a couple of days of the question being posted.
This will allow people who are experts in the canon to research the question properly and hopefully come up with an in-universe answer.
Please note that many/most people on the site are mostly interested in canon/in-universe answers. The "it's a plot hole" one is simply too obvious to be of any interest to anyone, unless elaborated with good cites.
What is some good boilerplate for a comment on a post that violates the rules above? Namely, is posted in haste before in-universe answers can be researched and posted; and/or lacks citations or references or any work shown that would provide evidence that in-universe answer isn't in existence? Ideally, the comment would make reference to above meta post and provide concise reasoning.
I'm looking for a good example of a standard comment to use in this instance.
NOTE: This is different from generic "please provide citations" comments on generic answers; because we do NOT have a general policy requiring citations on SFF, whereas we have a well accepted policy outlined in the answers in the linked meta questions for the "It's a plot hole" answers.
P.S. Obviously the above does NOT apply to rare questions where the poster clearly stated that they do NOT seek in-universe answers - but such questions are not a rule here.