One of the main reasons for question-closure (someone else can figure out the stats) is "questions about drawing trees". Two rationales have been given for this rule: (1) we don't do people's homework and (2) there are too many theories of syntax to be able to answer that question. I agree with those premises. However, I disagree with how the rule is stated, and have more than once advocated restating the rule. This question approaches the problem that I see. We have a question that would in principle be a good and answerable question, except that we have no idea what framework is assumes. The vast majority of tree questions are bad for both reasons (theory over-breadth and homework-solving). This one only suffers from the breadth problem, which I think is solvable.
In light of the fact that the existing "no tree" rule is dysfunction in not communicating the underlying reason, and the rule(s) could be easily repaired by articulating a "no homework" rule (thereby also properly including other kinds of homework questions like phonology and morphology problems not covered by the tree rule), and connecting the lack-of-framework problem to the existing breadth / focus rule, is there a good reason to maintain the current rule?
An example of a tree question which does specify framework is this one. In this case, and given that the OP needs to do "fact checking", I think this is a straightforward case of "please do my homework". This is an example of how a "no homework" rule would be independently necessary (and constitutes a lacuna).