The fundamental problem with advice is that it aims to get the listener to a point X but is phrased as a delta that presumes the listener is currently at Y and states what change to make to get to X from there.

If you look at basically every critique of some advice, it boils down to that core issue.

Often, people acknowledge this by saying, "Well, you need to know whether or not the advice applies to you." But that generally requires a level of sophistication the reader doesn't have. If they did, they wouldn't need the advice in the first place.

I'm not sure if there's a good solution to the problem. I think we tend to express advice in terms of a delta because it's more compact and because it's more directly actionable. Compare, "avoid passive voice" with "approximately 80% of your sentences should use active voice in most styles of writing however the fraction should be higher in narrative fiction and nonfiction and lower in academic writing."

In this case, "avoid passive voice" is a pretty good delta, statistically speaking. Most writers use passive voice too much. I have seen very little writing that uses too little passive voice. Those who don't overuse passive voice tend to be self-aware enough to know the advice doesn't apply to them. If you were to apply that advice to a large corpus of randomly selected text, you'd make more of it better than you made worse.