"Hard" vs. "soft" close votes

In the current workflow, "closing" a question can mean two different things:

1. The question is unanswerable in its current form, but if the author edits it with information they have, it can be answered. (Often "needs details or clarity".)
2. The question is unsuitable for Stack Overflow, and no amount of editing short of replacing it with an entirely different question will fix it. (For example "not about programming or software development".)

Staging Ground sort of captures this: the "require major changes" action indicates an edit is needed, but closing from Staging Ground suggests the question can't be improved to an answerable quality.

I feel like this distinction is lost on the main site though. If a question clearly would be on-topic and it would be answerable if only it had a source code fragment, we already know it's much easier to close the question than to get it reopened. And if it's closed and heavily downvoted and deleted (and I feel like I've seen a lot of question deletions recently) it's going to be almost impossible to get back.

Is there room to improve this particular workflow? Maybe if a question becomes "needs details or clarity", it gets shunted to Staging Ground instead of being "closed"? Or for some class of close reasons, prompt close voters to reopen if the question is edited?