I dispute that using ambiguous and/or vague (which are not the same thing) code-play is the same as the Socratic Method.
A philosophical teacher employs an established, common lexicon in order to convey accurate meaning.
Doing so is not necessarily rote-teaching; it is the means, not the end. As a teacher or tutor, I often employed leading, open-ended questions; I never employed a Gnostic-style, You-Have-To-Be-Shrewd-Enough-To-Guess-What-I-Am-Really-Saying approach, which is demeaning and misleading to the student. Instead, I phrased each question carefully, in language I was confident the student would correctly apprehend.
You and others here are conflating the use of unambiguous terminology with the act of mindless indoctrination.
That is logically fallacious.
Nothing shrewd in what is being employed by the members of Q, moreso a methodology of asking questions as in Who has the most to gain or other and then providing links to allow others to follow them and then ones that come from them on down, deeper into the roots of the issue
So this is not really an education exercise but one of helping people to exercise an investigative mode to come to a solution set. Not training a parrot, but helping them collect their thoughts
Pareto analysis is a methodology I have employed countless times to get to the root cause of a problem by looking at multiple points of fact that can help come to a decision point of action going ahead. Pareto analysis is a creative way of looking at causes of problems because it helps stimulate thinking and organize thoughts. However, it can be limited by its exclusion of possibly important problems which may be small initially, but which grow with time.
So what this whole activity is about is not brainwashing or thought lock, it is helping people to follow the clues and find things that are there but not known and then reach a conclusion, but it never states that this is THE desired conclusion
So the typical model in education of repetition and and recitation or “I say it and you memorize it and the correct response is when you say it back as they desire” Not all classes or exercises are conducted in this manner, but the method being employed promotes a different way of looking at facts and exploring possible links or connections
So call it what you will and throw stones, I have been in this world a long time and degrees mean nothing to me but time in a chair in school. If you have actually been on the field and used it to solve problems, then that counts more then book learning every time
There is at the end of this response no “common dialog” or Lexicon that needs to be employed or enforced as in your response. It stimulates the inquisitive side of the mind and allows for exploration into a question that in virtually all cases finds far more than you might expect, even beyond what the initiator had already found
So there is in closing no “logic” model to be had, except one of exploration, discovery and internal reflection on what it means