I think that an answer to a non-Kabala question that is based on Kabala concepts which it neither explains clearly nor links to clear explanations of is likely to be in violation of the spirit and letter of our jargon policy.
The "overall guiding principle" stated in this policy is:
Will any English speaker who is interested in this content be able to understand what it means without additional research?
If the question is about, say, why we put on shoes in a certain order, then it is naturally of interest to anyone who puts on shoes and bases their life on Jewish custom. Thus, any answer should, ideally, be understandable by anyone in that very broad group. So, an answer that says "R' Rishon (p. 72) says we do it this way for Kabbalisic reasons that are difficult to explain." is acceptable. It may be unsatisfying to some readers, but there may be no choice if the underlying rationale is truly too esoteric to explain in public. On the other hand, an answer that says "We do it this way because shoes unite the concepts of Kabala_Concept_A and Kabala_Concept_B in a way that can only be resolved when we follow Kabala_Concept_C." is not acceptable, since the answer it purports to provide is completely unintelligible to anyone not familiar with A, B, and C, and is therefore not useful, impeachable, or improvable by many people in the question's target audience.
On the other hand, if the question is inherently about Kabala_Concept_A, and it's reasonable to expect that anyone who is familiar enough with A to be interested in the question is also familiar with B and C, then answers that refer to B and C without explanation are acceptable.
Does this application of site policy mean that answers to non-Kabala questions based on Kabala concepts are effectively prohibited, even if they are correct? To the extent that they depend on concepts that are impossible or improper to explain in public, yes. In a Q&A forum such as ours, answers must address the questions and those interested in them.