Plot holes, meta knowledge, expanded material and nitpicking

I just wanted to discuss something I've been thinking about for a while, and I haven't really managed to come with any solution that is wildly applicable. It's a bit hard to explain what I'm getting at so bear with me:

I think anyone who's been around forums that discuss nerdy stories know that people love to overthink every aspect of a story. This is not something that's inherently bad as it's a behavior I engage with from time to time, and if you're just doing for fun I see no harm in it, but at times people do think those things are valid criticisms, and think it's the authors job to address those so called inconsistencies instead of just leaving things for interpretation. And that kinda made me wonder: at what point does something becomes needed to be explained?

Rich himself often clarifies logistics and explanations as to how things in his comics happened, such as how Miko was able to single handedly defeat the whole order and such. Now I actually really like those comments, and think they are an interesting bits of trivia and wordbuilding, but at the same time if he didn't made those comments, I don't think I'd be upset not knowing the reason why X character didn't just do Y instead, or how the logistics of a certain element in the story. And even if something is legitmely a plot hole and not even the author can reason in meta commentary on how it happened, is it really a problem if you'll only realize it's a plot hole after you look really deeply into it? Isn't it worth keeping it in if you think any alternative to having it will actively make the story worse?

And at the same time, there are things that I absolutely wouldn't be content with being told by the writer after the fact, but I don't know exactly where I draw the line...thoughts?