Okay, point taken. In any case, it would be hard for me to simultaneously claim that understanding necessarily enables you to explain, and that I have advice that would enable you to explain if you only have an understanding.

On the other hand, the advice I'm giving is derided as "obvious", but, if it's so obvious, why aren't people following it?

It seems to me that to explain skillfully, you need to have not just a grasp of your internal ontology, but also a reasonably accurate map of your conversant's internal ontology. ... seeking the nepocu is in the same class as understanding the typical mind fallacy and the problem of expecting short inferential distances, these being concerned with the relationship between two distinct internal ontologies.

But someone doesn't really need to recognize the difference between their own internal ontology and someone else's. In the worst case, they can just abandon attempts to link to the listener's ontology, and "overwrite" with their own, and this would be the obvious next step. In my (admittedly biased) opinion, the reason people don't take this route is not because this would take too long, but because the domain knowledge isn't even well-connected to the rest of their own internal ontology.

(Also, this is distinct from the "expecting short inferential distances" problem in that people don't simply expect it short, but that they wouldn't know what to do even if they knew it were very long.)

But it seems premature to go on with this discussion until you've made the post. I'm happy to continue if you want to (there's no shortage of electrons, after all), but if the post is near completion, it probably makes more sense to wait until it's done.

I still think advice would be helpful at this stage. I'll send you what I have so far, up to the understanding / nepocu points.