To answer the title question, I tried as a test to upvote it, it didn't work.
Note that I'm one of the top (up) voters on the site. But I wouldn't upvote your answer.* I'm not trying to be harsh, at all, I just want to convey a message.
If the short answer is the answer to the question, post that. If the question asks for the complete history, it would actually be closed as too broad.
Internet answers are not books, even scrolling down that answer one gets lost easily, no section breaks, etc.
I also see that many of the edits are very, very minor. While I can sense a aim for perfectionism, my real advice to you is that such thing doesn't exist. You'll have peace of mind once you realize that.
80 edit is just way too many.
And that's coming from a heavy editor, but I never got to 80. And any minor edits I make are usually within a few minutes/hours of submitting a post. Adding information is done if I've received a request for clarification, for example.
I've edited 1,459 posts (the number on my profile) that I'm not the author of, and those are mainly copy-editing, proofreading, or adjusting tags of others' posts. It's usually just the 1 edit. A recent copy-edit I made, I missed correcting 'rolls' to 'roles', and I let it go. Typos are okay. Note that published writers have teams behind them, and it is guaranteed to find errors in the first editions.
Proofreading one's own work is hard. Those who know their way around proofreading, know that one of the tips is printing the material in a different, even wacky, font, to help spot the errors -- I'm looking at you Comic Sans. For the purposes of internet posts, errors are okay.
Anyway, removing that number from my total revisions, and dividing by my total posts, my edit average is 4.33 edits per post, and trust me, I already feel bad about that because of how it bumps the posts.
I hope you come to terms with the above, and that since SE closes too broad questions, too broad answers won't find an audience.
* I'd like to address one of yours comments to this answer here, so it becomes visible to clarify what I meant, you said:
(...) The truth is that the original question is much more complex than initially meets the eye and every bit of the answer is relevant to the question. It simply cannot be answered with a short paragraph or two. Anyone, behavior of author (e.g. frequent editing) does not bear on merits of answer and it doesn't seem right that those who may have a different opinion than you have addressed here should not be able to upvote. Not a big deal but that's how I see it.
I'm not attacking the merits of the answer. You have two sections titled shortest answer and short answer. Those should be the post. The long part that comes after, i.e., "How to better understand the rationale behind the January 10 2018 Memorandum?" can actually be different posts (plural), which then you can add the links to.
Discuss that final paragraph here: Should the locked heavily edited long answer be split?