My primary issue with that I think is that it suggests part of being a good worker is the ability to articulate instincts, and some are better at explaining how they think than others. That doesnt make them better. It just means they are better at explaining themselves. The ability to clearly explain the work isnt part of the job description, and their word on these matters has little or no credibility by design. (They are carnies who rarely provide unfiltered truth.)
For me, the primary goal of reviewing and talking about matches is to effectively compare any match to any match. That means finding universal criteria and sticking to it, which in this case is the performance in the ring. Is it the only way? No. But to me, a ****1/2 match in 2018 is equal in quality to a ****1/2 match in 1974. Mileage may vary for others. And because of all these limitations that can skew how we rate wrestlers, I prefer matches since they can all be treated fairly, especially if you are like me and care not at all about production values.