Short answer: I cannot recall a single time when that has happened. Perhaps because we perform for different groups of people? Your example raises another issue - sure, anyone can take a stab at the explaination for a one step, hit and run effect like a single card change. Without context, it becomes a puzzle to solve, and we're a puzzle solving species. I open with a series of card changes, then engage on a different level with a different style of effect. If I'm doing my job right, the audience gets caught up in MY flow, and it's no longer about figuring out how it was done, but about enjoying the ride. This is easier with adults performing to adults of course - it's harder with my students, but it's still do-able.
Part of the problem with the situation you are talking about it that I don't really perform for people I know, who can find me several days later and discuss my tricks. Most of my audience members are strangers. What I do know is that on a fairly regular basis now I find myself having conversations with my friends, family and students which go along the following lines:
"Hey, I was talking to so-and-so the other day and they said that you performed at their office event...they wouldn't stop going on about all this crazy stuff you did, they were really impressed"
To which I look my best to look modest and unassuming, of course
I never hear "and they had this theory on how you did..."
When I do get to chat to people afterwards about the show - either minutes, hours or days later - the issue of method rarely comes up. I believe it is because I create a non-challenge environment with my magic - it is entertainment and I allow my audience to allow themselves to sit back and enjoy it. I would also conjecture that by showing a well structured routine consisting of a variety of different tricks, that the audience has less chance of becoming hung up on the workings of any one in particular.
By the by, the only crazy explainations I've ever had posed were for visual tricks; "heat sensitive cards" being a strong contender.
Your point about "hard data" is well taken, but consider my underlying point: your writing style was very definitive, authoritative even and as you say, there is nothing concrete to back it up. Opinions based on experience are a far more honest way to represent one's views on a question such as this one. It seems like everyone is an instant expert once they hit the internet, and I think the best thing we can do in the interests of fruitful discussion is to have more of an attitude of "I
think this,
because of that". This means that everyone knows who to take seriously and who not to.
In the interests of research, I had a look through my DVD collection. Traditional routine logic says that you close with a very strong item. Here's what I found:
In the non visual camp:
John G - "Gemini Prediction", "Ultimate Fate"
David Regal - "Flight of Fancy" (not cards!), "Deep Guilt Aces"
Bill Malone - memorised deck, Cards Across
I also draw attention to the "Super Closer" from Full Metal Jacket
Visual Camp:
Greg Wilson - Fism Aces, Revelation in Spades. Although on Double Take he does wrap things up with an ambitious card ending with a card to box, which could go either way.
Perhaps this says more about my DVD collection. Maybe it doesn't say much at all! But it's interesting nevertheless.