Studying the Responsories

Is there also something to try to determine from the answer? For example, if I read a restitution by some rabbi – do you believe that one should scrutinize it as if I were reading his novellas on the Gemara? Try to prove from his restitution in favor of a particular side in the investigation I raised? It is possible that he himself did not intend this interpretation, but what can be done? A question came before him and he had to interpret it this way – even if we accept that there is a certain interpretation that makes sense to me in the restitution, is it even possible to develop moves from it beyond what is written?
And besides, there are certainly times when you examine the posek. Not him himself, but if I read the restitution of the Rashba, I can determine from this that his own method is such and such on the issue. And if he were truly biased, there is nothing to prove that he actually believes this way systematically, and he would not necessarily disagree with another rabbi.

I don't see where this discussion is going. I said there's an interest in reading answers and it doesn't matter what the writer's method is. So what do I care if he meant it or not? Accuracy is also irrelevant unless the result seems correct to you.
And in general, how do you expect a general answer to a question like this? Of course, each answer and all context are separate. You need to use common sense and not accumulate rules about whether to be accurate or not. The assumption is that if someone writes something, they mean it. They're not lying. You can claim that the fact that they believe this stems from some need or distress. So what?