Why guidance needs versions and data needs the portal
Briefs here split cleanly in two, and the halves deserve opposite answers.
Statistical and surveillance requests usually belong on the open data portal. It is published, structured and maintained, and building a crawler to reproduce it is work nobody should pay for. We check it first and say so in the quote.
Guidance is different. It exists as web content, it changes as advice changes, and the historical versions are not published anywhere convenient. A client tracking how a recommendation evolved needs somebody to have been collecting it, and once collection starts every change becomes a record. That is the piece with real value and it is unrecoverable retrospectively.
The third consideration is suppression and comparability in the surveillance data. Counts are suppressed below thresholds, definitions change between reporting years, and geography boundaries are revised. A dataset that ignores those produces trend lines with methodology breaks presented as real movement.
The fourth is that this is a federal agency's public output. It is generally free of copyright restriction, which makes reuse comparatively simple, and it is public health guidance rather than clinical advice for an individual - a distinction we state rather than leave implied.