I absolutely agree, Jim, but that's also where we get back to putting in the work. The reason so few of us are remotely good at this is because it means putting in hundreds of hours (at least) of exercising those parts of the brain, and to do that, it needs to be fun. I think that's the "when you get it, you get it" angle, not the detection itself.
To shift this slightly, I tell students that the technical parts of programming are easy. If you can give good directions to a restaurant ("if you see this landmark, you've gone too far"), you can write a decent program. But to make it a career, you need to be willing to spend weeks at a time on tedious things...and eventually you'll need the social insight to know which restaurant people will enjoy. Likewise, following a suspect from his house to work is easy. Being a detective and doing that for a month, not so much.
And yes, the organization is also tricky. It might, again, be worth talking to people who have actively studied art. I can't imagine nobody has ever tried to solve this (or an analogous) problem. Like I said earlier, I know in writing, the studies have shifted to influence--use of certain vocabulary and structure implies a certain age and education, and sometimes even a favorite author. Here, it might be worth looking at who worked for who, what their training was, and so forth, to build those references into a more memorable structure.
