You might say that everyone else who tries out your artifact is a moron if they can't use it correctly. They would just say that you're a terrible designer with no concern for usability. Even the parts that are well-specified don't line up with how everyone else thinks about the problem space.
Not sure what does "how everyone else thinks about the problem space" have to do with a description of an algorithm / data structure. You either implement it correctly, or you don't. It doesn't matter what other people think about it. Many clever algorithms are good, exactly because they don't line up with how you normally think about the problem space.
Why do you have to like the solution to implement it correctly?
Because it's weird in ways that provide no real benefit except towards the gratification of the designer for having done something novel, and uses those novelties as an excuse to willfully leave out the data that's normally used for that.
You do need to understand it to implement it correctly (or rather, as correctly as its design will allow you to), but there's a naive implementation right within grasp — so the people implementing it in a larger playback system will do that because they already have full support for everything else and aren't about to refactor everything for your fanciful shit. They just want to tick a checkbox on a feature list that their real users don't really care about.
You might say that everyone else who tries out your artifact is a moron if they can't use it correctly. They would just say that you're a terrible designer with no concern for usability. Even the parts that are well-specified don't line up with how everyone else thinks about the problem space.