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.