With respect, if a constant stream of 'specifics' is required to be fed back to you by your customers in order for the documentation to be adequate, then there is certainly something amiss with the process that creates and releases it.
This isn't about 'us and them', it's about recognising and acknowleding that there is a fundamental flaw in the way that the process is working.
I'm not focussing exclusively on how things a written, I'm more concerned that WebAssist doesn't see the missing pieces or have the documentation properly evaluated and blind-tested before sending it out. It's not a hard concept to grasp: Find someone with some flat-page Dreamweaver experience, and give him\her a project to do using the existing documentation and the tools for dynamic developement and observe and record.
The man-hours it would save you in support work would surely make it cost-efficient. Keep the specifics coming, but please don't discount out-of-hand each time the possibility that there may be something lacking in the QA process.
You are not the people who use the documentation to get things working, your customers are. As such it is a little disingenuos to refer to specifics as helpful, and therefore imply that the 'general' isn't. It is the 'general' that appears to be the problem here, not the specifics. A persistent inability to consider that as a possibility really isn't helpful.