The original way question involved--Does a Smartphone contain all the essential properties of a Smartcard? If not, what is missing?-- was written struck me as one of those that:
(a) Was "trying to ask" about a really interesting & important--if super-duper-broad---topic: whether typical smartphones have the secure hardware within them to do what smartcards & PCs with TPMs can do. (To put it very roughly.)
(b) Could use some, uh, significant "improvements" of the kind that editors are encouraged to make. :) (You can look at the original question yourself.)
So I set out to try to improve the question while staying very faithful to what I thought the asker was trying to get at. I substantially reworked the first half of the question to improve the clarity, focus, and accuracy while still keeping the question about what hardware-based security capabilities smartphones have vs. smartcards & PCs with TPMs. Moreover, I deliberately decided not to narrow the ultra-broad scope of the question. Even though I realized that doing that would make the question easier to answer and would probably lead to better quality answers. Because it seemed to me that the original asker's intent was exactly to ask a very, very broad question.
In sum, I tried to be faithful to the "original intent" behind the question by keeping the substance & scope of it the same. (As I did explain in my edit description.) But, at least in the eyes of a couple reviewers, I went too far. Can anyone give me some feedback about where I went wrong? Or is this maybe a case where making extensive-but-legitimate changes to a question was perhaps ... misinterpreted as changing the intent of the original question?
(I ask partly because this isn't the first edit I've had rejected on "original intent" grounds.)