The way I have understood, which could be incorrect, R&A (dunno about USGA) works in this type of "random person" inquiries is that some "random" R&A person goes through the question and responds. It is not reviewed by a board, but is a response of one single, though knowledgeable, person. And it is not a real ruling, per se. You should be able to rely on it, but... In R&A world if you want a real ruling you should submit it through Golf association/union/whatever to R&A.
The R&A do not have 'random people'. It has a limited number of fully authorised staff. If there is a doubtful situation they will discuss and agree the response in the office or even discuss with the USGA if the implications are significant.
My impression is that the USGA has more staff but many without the same authority or experience.
If the situation relates to an actual on course incident, they will usually make it clear that the ruling only relates to that incident and should not be used in other cases which may not be exactly the same.
It has been known for R&A rulings to be different to USGA rulings. I had one re French Drains where the USGA eventually admitted they were wrong although the significance was trivial.