Q:

A flag towards an answer was declined, but the reason given seems to conflict with the flagging option description

I flagged an answer with the option very low quality. According to this option description: 

This answer has severe formatting or content problems.

As far as I understand, the word content here means the technical side of the answer - the actual information given in the answer, and if it's technically incorrect, then the answer has severe content problems.
But I've got a flag declined with the reason flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer. This reason seems to conflict with the very low quality option description.
I'm not going to argue with this decision. I just want to understand the policy behind it in order to flag properly in future.
Question: when is the question considered to have severe content problems?

A:

Jeff says:

Ask yourself this:

Would you be embarrassed to be associated with this post if it had your name on it?

To me that is the essence of Very Low Quality. Not just bad but embarrassingly bad.

I guess a wrong answer is embarrassing. Then again, there's another part of the flag--the "unlikely to be salvageable" part.
Jeff also says:

VLQ means the flagger thinks this post is beyond saving -- no amount of editing or polishing will turn this particular turd into gold. It is a call for a pooper-scooper. 

Even wrong answers can be corrected--usually it's only a small part of them which is wrong. I think the answerer could have fixed this question(which is the one you're talking about, right?) on the basis of your comment (not sure, though).

A bit more regarding wrong answers: (though it talks about upvoted wrong answers, which can't be VLQ-flagged, anyway)

If it is really, really wrong (as in dangerously wrong, like 'delete C:\NTLDR in order to improve computer performance'), flag it for moderator attention.

