It's great that's it's consistent. My problem is that the notation only makes sense if you already understand the very thing that he's trying to explain with this notation.
That's not entirely true. The point being made is about the consequences of the design being set up with that notation. That design and that notation is reasonably general. It requires some familiarity with notation around mathematical statistics, modeling, Bayesian formalisms, and random variables.
The thing he's trying to explain is how those things interact and what their behavior is.
The thing he's trying to explain is how those things interact and what their behavior is.