Do you feel like papers should have separate derivations & proofs of correctness? The second one requiring correctness (intuition being secondary), and the first one being intuitive (rigor being secondary).
I never implied that the obfuscation comes from having to present the maths. Clarity and rigour are orthogonal concepts. In fact, the reverse is often the case: make the derivations comprehensive and easy enough to follow, and the reader will feel it was an obvious result.
The argument here is that occasionally you should jump from A to C, skipping B (in the paper, not in your own work!), such that the reader will have to work that extra step to reach C from A, to make them appreciate more that the insight "A leads to C" was not a trivial one (and thus "not novel").
The argument here is that occasionally you should jump from A to C, skipping B (in the paper, not in your own work!), such that the reader will have to work that extra step to reach C from A, to make them appreciate more that the insight "A leads to C" was not a trivial one (and thus "not novel").