There were two edits in the review today and I wasn't quite sure what to make of them. Both of them added a sizable part to an answer. As far as I got the topic the added content was not extending existing content, it was genuinely new. There was nothing obviously wrong with the content. Still I feel this is like putting words into the original author's mouth and might even change the overall meaning.
Approached from a different: The usual good edit that I accept adds context to existing content, might explain something or corrects style/language/minor factual errors - I probably forgot something, but the main point is it is based on existing content.
Is an edit as described in the first paragraph or not falling into the category of the second desirable or should it be rejected (and possible go into a separate answer)?