Earlier quoted context omitted.
None of that is relevant without you, the person architecting the questions or the idea, being able to cogently convey this to others. If you cannot understand it enough to transfer the knowledge, or if you are incapable of expressing your inner voice enough to transfer the knowledge, it's all for not. That's one of the concepts this process is supposed to handle. Validation that you can transfer knowledge. Broken or…
Fair point when it comes to training a PhD, but the creation of the actual report is no measure of that. The oral presentation is, along with speaking opportunities and conferences perhaps. Perhaps there are other, more contemporary approaches that could be encouraged in the PhD process?
I agree though, we'll have to look forward, not backwards to solve this.