Does that help?
Oh; yes!
It shows me that apparently YOU can decide what is PROPER for them to expound upon.
Why yes: yes, I can.
Based on the ordinary, accepted principles of the specific competencies and limits of the hierarchical teaching authority.
First: the hierarchy is competent to rule on faith and morals, the proper content of theology; not on other matters such as molecular biology, small engine repair or weather forecasting.
Second: even for the pope, magisterial authority is not a property that makes him an all-purpose oracle. He does not receive Divine inspiration in the way that the writers of Scripture received inspiration. His guarantees are essentially negative: not that he will always say the right thing, but that he will not make errors which will be binding "de fide" and thus lead the whole Church into error.
In a social encyclical, one finds statements of general principles. These are the most authoritative. One also finds various analyses of particular political, economic, and social situations. These usually involve judgments of a prudential sort that are not binding in either the de fide or authoritative sense. They still merit respectful attention, as coming from the supreme earthly shepherd of the Church.
For example, the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, the existence of and limits to the right to own private property, the principles regulating just warfare, and the like are highly authoritative. But the more one descends to particulars, the less one is dealing with “binding doctrine” and the more one is dealing with pastoral guidance.
If you want to read more about the different levels of authority, one can begin with Lumen Gentium (LINK) (a document of Vatican II). There was also a document of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith a few years ago called Ad Tuendam Fidem , written by St. John Paul II, which is very helpful.
In the encyclical Laudato Si itself (this much-debated environmental encyclical), Pope Francis actually makes it quite clear that the "prudential" parts are not binding, are not intended to be binding, and are rather "conversation starters" for what Pope Francis hopes will be an ongoing dialogue.
This idea of "encyclical as dialogue platform" is indeed an innovation, because there has never (to my knowledge) been a precedent, an encyclical which was manifestly NOT meant to be authoritative.
But here you have it, in Pope Francis' own words: #190
... especially as follows:
p. 14 “I urgently appeal, then, for a new dialogue … We need a new conversation…raising awareness of these challenges…”
p. 15 “I will advance some broader proposals for dialogue and action…”
p. 16 “I will point to…the call to seek other ways of understanding… the need for forthright and honest debate…”
p. 19”Our goal is… to become painfully aware [of] what is happening to our world…”
“Dialogue,” “conversation,” “proposals,” “debate,” awareness-raising --- these words establish that the papal intent here is to spark a discussion, not to define doctrine.