Among the dozen-or-so comments under your post there, I've counted 5 links to meta.codereview.stackexchange.com where you should have posted this meta-question. Asking on MSE isn't really helping the community understand that you want to cooperate here.

Your question has been put on hold by users with respectively 13.7K, 33.4K, 15.7K, 7.2K and 14.8K reputation score on Code Review. These people (including myself) have been around and cast a fair amount of cumulative close votes which I'd estimate at close to a thousand; they're all high-profile regular contributors that have been around for quite a while, and that know what flies and what doesn't, and what close reasons to use and when.

Now, the question isn't whether or not your post is on-topic - it's not. The concern is whether the correct close reason was used.

Let's see:

We have only 3 slots for custom close reasons.

1. The first close reason is used for:

• Questions containing broken code. Because code that doesn't do what it's supposed to be doing, isn't ready for a peer review. These questions may be on-topic for Stack Overflow.
• Questions asking about code not yet written. This applies to questions that may have something implemented, but are essentially asking how to add such or such feature.

2. The second close reason (which applies here) is used for:

• Questions clearly asking to review code that they don't own or maintain, as in "I've grabbed this code from such or such OSS project, ..."
• Questions stripped of their context, filled with placeholders (// stuff), or otherwise boiled-down to such a specific issue that there's no opportunity left for reviewers to actually review the code - OP simply wants an answer, not a peer review.
• Questions seeking explanation of someone else's code - the "someone else's code" part is to reinforce the "code that you own or maintain", but the idea here is that CR questions are not for explaining what the code does. It's the OP's job to explain the reviewers what the code is doing, not the other way around.

3. The third custom close reason addresses another common issue with CR questions, where OP links to pastebin or GitHub, and expects people to review an entire project. This one is pretty clear IMO.

As you can see, there's several reasons why a question can be off-topic on CR, and only 3 spots to address the most common ones.

Why do we combine close reasons into a single slot? Because otherwise, we'd constantly be using custom close reasons, and that gets annoying. Plus, custom close reasons have this aftertaste of "arbitrary", while the "official" ones have already been discussed and community-approved on the CR meta.

The point is, it's not because a close reason says "A, B or C" that it doesn't apply to your question because you rightfully claim A and B don't apply: the close reasons say "A, B or C" because making a separate close reason for all 3 would eat up all the spots, while the 3 reasons essentially boil down to a common element.

Among the dozen-or-so comments under your post there, I've counted 5 links to meta.codereview.stackexchange.com where you should have posted this meta-question. Asking on MSE isn't really helping the community understand that you want to cooperate here.

Your question has been put on hold by users with respectively 13.7K, 33.4K, 15.7K, 7.2K and 14.8K reputation score on Code Review. These people (including myself) have cast a fair amount of cumulative close votes which I'd estimate at close to a thousand; they're all high-profile regular contributors that have been around for quite a while, and that know what flies and what doesn't, and what close reasons to use and when.

Now, the question isn't whether or not your post is on-topic - it's not. The concern is whether the correct close reason was used.

Let's see:

We have only 3 slots for custom close reasons.

1. The first close reason is used for:

• Questions containing broken code. Because code that doesn't do what it's supposed to be doing, isn't ready for a peer review. These questions may be on-topic for Stack Overflow.
• Questions asking about code not yet written. This applies to questions that may have something implemented, but are essentially asking how to add such or such feature.

2. The second close reason (which applies here) is used for:

• Questions clearly asking to review code that they don't own or maintain, as in "I've grabbed this code from such or such OSS project, ..."
• Questions stripped of their context, filled with placeholders (// stuff), or otherwise boiled-down to such a specific issue that there's no opportunity left for reviewers to actually review the code - OP simply wants an answer, not a peer review.
• Questions seeking explanation of someone else's code - the "someone else's code" part is to reinforce the "code that you own or maintain", but the idea here is that CR questions are not for explaining what the code does. It's the OP's job to explain the reviewers what the code is doing, not the other way around.

3. The third custom close reason addresses another common issue with CR questions, where OP links to pastebin or GitHub, and expects people to review an entire project. This one is pretty clear IMO.

As you can see, there's several reasons why a question can be off-topic on CR, and only 3 spots to address the most common ones.

Why do we combine close reasons into a single slot? Because otherwise, we'd constantly be using custom close reasons, and that gets annoying. Plus, custom close reasons have this aftertaste of "arbitrary", while the "official" ones have already been discussed and community-approved on the CR meta.

The point is, it's not because a close reason says "A, B or C" that it doesn't apply to your question because you rightfully claim A and B don't apply: the close reasons say "A, B or C" because making a separate close reason for all 3 would eat up all the spots, while the 3 reasons essentially boil down to a common element.