Add a little more clarity about the heuristics and how to fix the broken example

Author: eholk

docs/code-quality/c6011.md

@@ -66,10 +66,7 @@ The careless use of `malloc` and `free` leads to memory leaks and exceptions. To
 
 ## Heuristics
 
-Pointers are assumed to be non-null unless there is some evidence that they might be null.
-In the examples we've seen so far, pointers returned by `malloc` or `new` might be null because allocation might fail.
-Another characteristic that the analysis engine uses as evidence of nullability is if the program explicitly checks for null.
-This is illustrated in the following examples:
+Code analysis assumes pointers are non-null unless there is some evidence that they might be null, which is a heuristic used to reduce the number of warnings in legacy code. In the examples we've seen so far, pointers returned by `malloc` or `new` might be null because allocation might fail. Another characteristic that the analysis engine uses as evidence of nullability is if the program explicitly checks for null. This is illustrated in the following examples:
 
 ```cpp
 void f(int* n)
@@ -86,6 +83,8 @@ void f(int* n)
 }
 ```
 
+In the second case, the user can fix the warning by moving the `*n = 1` line inside the if block.
+
 ## See also
 
 - [Using SAL Annotations to reduce code defects](using-sal-annotations-to-reduce-c-cpp-code-defects.md)