Suppose a tutorial promises to help marketers build a three-email welcome sequence for a course launch. The walkthrough covers the emails, but comments keep asking what happens if someone buys after email one. That is not necessarily a request for more content. It may mean the video skipped a condition viewers need before they can safely finish the workflow.
I would sort those comments by the task they describe. If one person asks how to set the purchase condition in an unusual email tool, a direct reply may solve their edge case. If people using different tools all ask whether buyers should receive the remaining sales emails, the missing decision belongs with the existing tutorial. A concise clarification in the description or pinned comment can state the rule and point to the step where it applies. That helps the viewer who is trying to finish the promised task now.
A follow-up earns its production cost only when the question has a separate, useful payoff: for example, how to build different post-purchase paths for first-time and returning buyers, with examples of what each group receives. That is a distinct workflow, not a longer explanation of the sentence the first video omitted.
The test is whether the comments expose a shared blockage, a tool-specific exception, or a new job to be done. Those call for different amounts of work.
What recurring question in your tutorial comments has actually justified production time, and what made it more than something you could answer in place?