I have a general objection against this interpretation - it throws away the literal meaning of the EY's post.
The literal meaning of the post, if any, is: no matter of carefully crafted post-hoc justification is going to make your conclusion correct. I don't think your interpretation is closer to it than mine.
Could you mention specific examples of such complex hypotheses? I mean, where it would make sense to know the conclusion in advance, and yet the conclusion would not be reachable in a single intuitive leap.
I am not sure what you mean by "making sense to know the conclusion in advance" and "reachable in a single intuitive leap". I am thinking of questions whose valid justification is not irreducible - either it is a chain of reasoning or it consists of independent pieces of evidence - just as:
Does God exist? Does global warming happen? Why did the non-avian dinosaurs become extinct? Is the millionth decimal digit of pi 8? Who is the best candidate for the upcoming presidential elections in Nicaragua?
Most questions I can think of now are like that, so there is probably some misunderstanding.
In the spirit of contrarianism, I'd like to argue against The Bottom Line.
As I understand the post, its idea is that a rationalist should never "start with a bottom line and then fill out the arguments".
It sounds neat, but I think it is not psychologically feasible. I find that whenever I actually argue, I always have the conclusion already written. Without it, it is impossible to have any direction, and an argument without any direction does not go anywhere.
What actually happens is:
It is at the point 3 that the biases really struck. Motivated Stopping makes me stop checking too early, and Motivated Continuation makes me look for better arguments when defective ones are found for the conclusion I seek, but not for alternatives, resulting in Straw Men.