Why Don't Edits Require Supporting Proof?
A primary nomination requires you to submit multiple points of proof to support its legitimacy, hopefully reducing the amount of fake nominations. A primary legit nomination takes time and effort, sometimes including verifiable links that further support the POIs legitimacy.
Edits, on the other hand, require no such proofs. No background on the original nomination is given to reviewers to compare against, and very little time is needed to sub a change, since all the hard work to create the POI has already been done.
Valid edits to correct typos, add additional info, update pics etc, without totally changing name, info etc are easy to accept. But location edits, complete rewrites, and spurious descriptions can't be accurately reviewed without understanding why the change is needed, and what the primary nomination consisted of. Can't do that without evidence. So why doesn't the edit of existing POIs require it?
Addit- after scrolling through 150+ pages of posts that had some relation to my question, there was comments reporting that supporting evidence could possibly influence reviewers decisions, and that Nia wanted to remove as much potential bias as possible.
In response to that, the amount of edit appeals posted proves that the above perception is rubbish. Nia immediately asks for multiple forms of proof, in order to make an informed decision. But under the reason they gave, this would amount to the appealer influencing Nia, and should be reported as abuse. Riiiiggghhhttt.
Information allows for an informed decision, not a guess, and isn't a form of influence. The amount of appeals present here shows the inability of reviewers to make the best decision, without information.