New York Times, Thursday, June 29, 2023

This is one of those puzzles where the editors were able to see it from the solvers' perspective in a way that I hadn't considered. I'll explain. My initial idea was to clue the compound answer phrases (HORSE.TRAINERS, TRAVEL.AGENCY, HITCHING.POST, and BALLET.SLIPPER). For example, 47-Across [Give a hand] would be (P)ITCHIN, and 49-Across [With 47-Across, Frontier parking spot?] would be (P)ITCHIN+G(H)OST, seemingly a very wrong answer. [Forming a union, perhaps…] would have hinted at "EXCHANGING RINGS": (P)ITCHIN+G(H)OST would equal (H)ITCHIN+G(P)OST, after the "ringed" (P) and (H) get swapped in the solver's mind. And "forming a union" would also hint at combining/reparsing the two halves to yield HITCHING POST.

Confused yet? Ya, that's what the editors thought you might say! They noted that the "correct" answer for the compound phrases would not be what's entered on the grid, which can be frustrating for solvers. But they argued that seeing the compound answers emerge during the solve –especially with the revealer in the middle of the grid instead of at the more traditional bottom right — would be plenty fun and surprising. I appreciated the time they put into discussing the tiniest details of the puzzle's mechanics. Hope you all enjoy it!

An interesting, multidimensional approach: find two-word phrases such that when two letters are swapped and the space is shifted, they form two valid entries? I would never have thought of that.

The four finds ended up being a mere afterthought, though, one that I wouldn't have bothered to track down if I didn't feel obligated to do so by the inevitable raft of questions from confused readers.

Both sides have valid points. Simeon wanted solvers to achieve a more glorious a-ha. The NYT team wanted something that wouldn't confuse a ton of solvers. What could have broken the impasse? If a mediator had been brought in, would they have been able to negotiate a less one-sided outcome? I spent a lot of time mulling over these questions, and I doubt it could have been resolved as the grid stands.

However, this could have been a fantastic opportunity to brainstorm and expand the concept into a rich 21x21 with yet more dimensions. What if an additional entry held the clue to the final result, for example? AIRPLANE TICKETS, clued as [What row X form], perhaps. That extra element would prompt solvers to go back and puzzle over what in the hell is going on, finally flipping the switch to earn their fist-pumping moment.

It's no secret that I'm a vocal critic of the NYT's lackluster approach to Sunday puzzles. I'd love to see a dedicated team assigned to take creative ideas like this one and shape them into innovative 21x21s that are both accessible and push the boundaries.