I think calling problem articulation "just sophistry" is overly reductionist. People who make the effort to articulate the problems (e.g., some Chronicle of Higher Ed writers) offer thoughtful readers other possibilities for consideration. Then, in the rare case that a powerful decision-maker perceives a tension in the status quo, there exist well articulated potential actions to resolve the tension. This is why think-tanks write white papers. The narrative that "people on the ground" is a necessary condition for reform dissuades thoughtful problem articulation. "People on the ground" is one way to influence decision-makers, but it is not necessary. Watch CSPAN when a septuagenarian Senator references his/her granddaughter's comment as influencing his/her vote.
I think a senator being influenced by a grand child is a good mental case study in productive dissemination of an ideology. There are many people in leadership roles who may sometimes be on the lookout for strategies to tackle problems, but the only way those strategies become actionable is if someone nearby 1) has had the idea communicated to them and 2) is able to rhetorically sway those commanding the decision making process (the is an instant victory if sufficient decision making position has been captured by allies). Ultimately the ideas themselves only gain material action with a dissemination network with a connection to the people making decisions.
The concept of lobbying itself has been basically shattered in our modern world with businesses having a near infinite amount of resources to exploit it. I don't think there's anything implicitly unreasonable about conveying your understanding of the importance, impact, and potential consequences of major choices onto key decision makers.