I was struck reading this recent question Did lightning strike the St. Peter basilica the night the Pope resigned? that the answer requested is, in one sense trivial, but will inevitably be incomplete.
The problem here is that the question as asked has a trivial answer. We should be able to find simple verification of whether there was a lightning strike at that point in time. But the fact that the question was posed implies another question, not explicitly asked but just implied: was the strike or its timing significant?
By the normal rules of this site, simple proof that the strike happened on that date is a good answer. But this doesn't address the implied question at all. A better answer would provide the statistics of how often lightning strikes the Basilica, putting the answer in a context which also addresses the significance (well the statistical significance at least as the theological significance is likely off topic). If lightning strikes the basilica every week, then the fact that it did that night is not unusual or significant at all.
I'm sure we have quite a few questions of this sort where the question as asked is neutral, but implicitly implies greater significance.
My suggestion, on which I would welcome further comment, would be to encourage answers that also provide the (unrequested) context so the implied question is answered as well as the explicit question actually asked.