links to a zip containing drivers for Windows running in Bootcamp. I think the answer is pretty self-explanatory, but somehow I don't feel right to just leave them at is. I don't know what to comment either, as it is self-explanatory?
If the answer is software or drivers published by a reputable source (manufacturer, OEM, etc) with an established web presence then telling people what they need and how to get them and then providing a link for convenience is best. If the link goes dead, knowing what they're looking for and how to get them can allow a corrected link to be added later if necessary.
If the answer is a custom solution that requires software that exists but isn't necessarily professionally maintained, the answer is probably "it depends".
Asking "Is this package really the only solution?" or "Is there a way to host this package in a way that is less prone to change or loss?" may be good questions to ask before deciding the best way to provide the solution.
At the very least, explaining in the answer the nature of the software solution, where it comes from or how it was constructed, why it is necessary, and that it isn't guaranteed to be available for ever may at least be an appropriate flag pointing future people towards a solution even if the original solution is no longer available.
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.