The question "Which school of economic thought aligns with past data better: Keynesian or Austrian?" has been put on hold as (generating answers that would be) "primarily opinion-based". The standard text accompanying this on-hold reason reads
"Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise."
"Alignment with data?" is one activity where Economics routinely "generates some degree of opinion based on expert experience", but alongside "facts, references, or specific expertise".
Moreover, "Alignment with data?" is one of the major challenges and points of assessment of economic models.
So I don't see why the question in question was closed as "primarily opinion-based". As I stated in the answer I provided, the question was rather "too broad" -but sometimes it is useful to say "this is difficult to assess" or "there does not appear to be any serious work on the matter". Sometimes, interesting questions may have "disappointing" answers like that, which nevertheless, are still useful.
I believe it would be helpful if the people that voted to close for the "opinion-based" reason shared their viewpoints as answers to this thread, so that maybe some collective guidance emerges as to how we should approach and assess future questions of this type.