Thought process is fine, but lead with the plain and simple version. Offer context after you've introduced the topic and described what you're talking about.
I think when you're trying to be convincing of a counter intuitive or controversial point, it helps to start with less objectionable parts of the argument first. If an argument involves several steps, A to B to C ending in D, but D is wildly counter intuitive, some audiences, hearing D first will reduce their likelihood of actually integrating the consequences of A and so on. Maybe someone who's done more research on the psychology of priming would know?
I'm not so sure. A shining example is the essay "One Self: The Logic of Experience"[0]. The first paragraph is just 3 sentences, and the first sentence lays it out: