I don't like that answer as I do not believe it is truly self-explanatory. Even with allegedly explanatory addresses like the one linked, it still doesn't answer the question, only infer the possible answer by merit of solidifying your problem's parameters.
As Journeyman Geek stated, the rule is essentially in-place due to dead-links making an answer useless to people later. I don't see how the string of,
Cirrus-Audio-Drivers-for-apple-macbook-running-windows-10-via-bootcamp could lead anyone to an answer immediately, unless they copied that text, removed the hyphens, and then started the troubleshooting journey from the very beginning, presumably again.
An acceptable answer IMO would explain the gist of your problem, the gist of your solution, and then the link to do the solution if it's unreasonable replicate it here due to say, huge size, otherwise a link correlated to your gist's explanations after providing them here would be optimal for source-citing as opposed to source-answers, i.e., link answers for this context.
For this answer, I would have provided the name of the drivers affected and their suitable replacements, their replacement publisher, and if possible, a gist of why you needed to replacement drivers in the first place in case the alternative driver source vanished.
I also do not consider a "reputable" manufacturer as some kind of gold-standard source. Microsoft jabs aside, I've seen Microsoft URLs die over time, so I wouldn't trust anyone else blindly.
It's best to make a local copy of the content and cite its source.