Though OAP did have some barriers to its usability, I was able to use it to make inferences about how well designed my game was. For example, using OAP, I was able to determine that 3/8 of my players were solving Iteration 2's 3rd Level (the puzzle shall now be named Simple Primer) in such a way that there was very little difficulty in solving the puzzle at all. This occurred because players were moving a piece that I didn't expect them to move as their first move. The challenging part of this puzzle is working out which order the red and green gems need to be deployed in, but solving the puzzle in this unexpected way destroys this challenge.
(Simple Primer - Iteration 2 Level 3)
I looked up the survey ratings for these three corresponding players, to see if there were any major differences in how they rated this level ...
Average enjoyment of Simple Primer (out of 5): 3.375
P1 enjoyment: 4
P2 enjoyment: 4
P3 enjoyment: 2
Average of P1-3: 3.333
Average difficulty of Simple Primer (out of 5): 2.75
P1 difficulty: 2
P2 difficulty: 4
P3 difficulty: 1
Average of P1-3: 2.333
So neither average enjoyment nor average difficulty rating dropped below the overall average by a significant amount, indicating that this accidental strategy did not cause any lapse in the players' enjoyment, when compared to the ratings of other players.
Why was this the case? I would expect players who are finding an easy solution to one of the puzzles to rate it less difficult, and less enjoyable, that those who aren't finding the easy solution.