I find two places—probably there are more—where the Buddha speaks about how to answer questions.
AN3.67:2.1: Kathāsampayogena, bhikkhave, puggalo veditabbo yadi vā kaccho yadi vā akacchoti.
AN3.67:2.1: You can know whether or not a person is competent to hold a discussion by seeing how they take part in a discussion.
AN3.67:2.2: Sacāyaṃ, bhikkhave, puggalo pañhaṃ puṭṭho samāno ekaṃsabyākaraṇīyaṃ pañhaṃ na ekaṃsena byākaroti, vibhajjabyākaraṇīyaṃ pañhaṃ na vibhajja byākaroti, paṭipucchābyākaraṇīyaṃ pañhaṃ na paṭipucchā byākaroti, ṭhapanīyaṃ pañhaṃ na ṭhapeti, evaṃ santāyaṃ, bhikkhave, puggalo akaccho hoti.
AN3.67:2.2: When a person is asked a question, if it needs to be answered with a generalization and they don’t answer it generally; or if it needs analysis and they answer without analyzing it; or if it needs a counter-question and they answer without a counter-question; or if it should be set aside and they don’t set it aside, then that person is not competent to hold a discussion.
AN3.67:2.3: Sace panāyaṃ, bhikkhave, puggalo pañhaṃ puṭṭho samāno ekaṃsabyākaraṇīyaṃ pañhaṃ ekaṃsena byākaroti, vibhajjabyākaraṇīyaṃ pañhaṃ vibhajja byākaroti, paṭipucchābyākaraṇīyaṃ pañhaṃ paṭipucchā byākaroti, ṭhapanīyaṃ pañhaṃ ṭhapeti, evaṃ santāyaṃ, bhikkhave, puggalo kaccho hoti.
AN3.67:2.3: When a person is asked a question, if it needs to be answered with a generalization and they answer it generally; or if it needs analysis and they answer after analyzing it; or if it needs a counter-question and they answer with a counter-question; or if it should be set aside and they set it aside, then that person is competent to hold a discussion.
DN33:1.11.142: Cattāri pañhabyākaraṇāni—
DN33:1.11.142: Four ways of answering questions.
DN33:1.11.143: ekaṃsabyākaraṇīyo pañho, paṭipucchābyākaraṇīyo pañho, vibhajjabyākaraṇīyo pañho, ṭhapanīyo pañho. (28)
DN33:1.11.143: There is a question that should be answered definitively. There is a question that should be answered analytically. There is a question that should be answered with a counter-question. There is a question that should be set aside.
Ekaṃsa is rendered as “a generalization”, or “generally”, in one place and as “definitively” in the other. Is there a particular reason for that, or is it just an inconsistency that came about due to the vastness of the canon, Bhante @sujato? Looking into the dictionary entries for ekaṃsa, this would rather point to the second reading.