I guess I have reverse dunning Kruger syndrome. I never dare say I really understand something unless I actually know the mechanics of it. Anything that's heavily model based interpretation to me is like a black box.
I mean, it’s worth retaining a lot of humility about the particular details. In the detection field you’re always coming up with novel analysis functions for your particular application. Nonetheless the principles behind different analysis methods are all the same. In the most generic sense you’re just tailoring your pattern fit functions to different coefficients and errors. You can get away with this level of abstraction with photon based detection methods because thankfully the physical properties involved are all very precisely defined. Otherwise none of this level of precision engineering would even be possible!
I for one would never propose to know the exact methodology another detection field uses for their particular application. But if you know enough of the general principles that’s shared across detection fields you can at least ask productive questions and also get a sense of how doable or not doable a particular R&D endeavor is. And I think for our purposes in this thread that’s at least good enough to help set expectations.