There is exactly one thing you could do that would be more effective in improving your communication about DI than anything else, by an order of magnitude:
Explain, accurately and briefly but with enough detail that someone could give the method a go if they wanted, just what the hell Direct Instruction actually is.
Because (1) that would actually be useful to us and (2) failing to do so sets off (for me, and I'm guessing for lots of others) all sorts of mental alarms of the "someone's trying to scam you" variety. Enthusing about how wonderful something is while not saying just what it is is an absolutely standard behaviour of snake-oil salesmen, proselytizers for cults, etc., and you are not putting yourself in good company by adopting a similar approach.
(For the avoidance of doubt: I am not calling you a snake-oil salesman or cultist. I am still assigning a fairly high probability to their being something useful behind the puffery. But if you don't very quickly cut to the chase and tell us enough about what you're talking about for us to understand it, that's going to change. I don't think I'm alone in this.)
A quick Google search turned up this promising report on Direct Instruction. Unfortunately it reads very similarly to Owen's posts - lots of trying to convince me Direct Instruction is great great great, practically no information about what DI is, even in the section entitled What Is Direct Instruction? I've updated in the "DI is legitimately hard to summarize" direction.
[NOTE: This was a discussion post asking if anyone would mind giving feedback on a very rough draft in progress.
If you are downvoting it because you do not want to see discussion posts asking for feedback like this, then by all means, that's a valid use of a downvote.
But if you are downvoting it in order to express your opinion of the quality of the draft, I urge you to reconsider]
This is another work in progress coming at the DI issue from a somewhat different direction. It's contained in the comments of the original, and I'm posting this to ask for more wonderful beta-reader critics to tell me if it's a step in the right direction. (It's still very informal writing, but it's the ideas I'm dealing with now.)
And about what I'm looking for in the LW audience, someone asked me in a private message:
And I said:
Well, that's the major part of what I want that's important here. I also had to add:
But that's not important here (except to disclose that is where I'm coming from). LWers would first have to understand DI to fully grasp that. And I am significantly less certain of my current beliefs about those 'strategic twists' (although still pretty certain), and LWers proficient in DI would be the best to evaluate the ideas.