Hi Suhail
For what it’s worth (probably not much 
), as a family physician without extensive training in epi/stats, I had trouble understanding the new proposal. I did, however, find the explanations in the following article to be quite clear. S values seem at least somewhat intuitive to non-experts:
I suspect that any concepts more complicated than S values will be hard to teach to an audience without a graduate degree in epi or stats.
Bayesian presentations of trial results often, but not always https://discourse.datamethods.org/t/multiplicity-adjustments-in-bayesian-analysis/2649), feel easier to grasp. But I’m not sure that there are enough instructors who are expert enough with these methods (“how the sausage is made”) to teach them correctly to a clinical audience (?) More worryingly, until a sufficient number of researchers deeply understand these methods, there’s a risk that they will produce studies that are ostensibly easier to interpret, yet clinically misleading (though there’s already plenty of bad practice in presenting frequentist results). Not an easy problem…