Giving #feedback to the other half on services they lead or preach at

I know somebody who earns their living as an actor.  One time when we were chatting he explained to me the custom of directors giving notes to cast members.

As I remember his explanation this wasn't about the passing of an actual bit of paper.  Instead it was the act of giving an actor feedback on their performance.

Both the good and the bad.

Now before my wife became a Rev both of us were quite active in our local church in our village.  As part of that we would regularly lead services or give talks.   Over the years of doing such we had both got into the habit of giving each other verbal "notes" after the other half had done something in a church service.  

So typically this would cover issues like the clarity of the points made in a talk or whether an activity or illustration worked.  

As my wife started her curacy I'm now the only one giving notes as I don't do leadership stuff in church services. And of course I'm not in any way her director.  Her training and education leading up to ordination have made her way more qualified than I as concerns preaching and leading in a church context.  So the balance of each of us giving notes to the other has been lost.  It is now largely one way traffic.

So now-a-days I find myself having to be more thoughtful about what I say in giving feedback.  Which on reflection is probably a good thing.  As the weeks have turned into months of her being a curate I've noticed one thing.  

How each church develops its own particular way of running services but describes how it does things as "Oh you know, just the usual way"

So at a very charismatic evangelical church I attended when I was much younger we'd describe the services as being spirit led and free from a set approach or liturgy.  But in fact looking back on it now there were particular times in the service when people would speak in tongues and another person would offer an interpretation (but not always).

At the church my wife is a curate at they have a 1662 Book of Common Prayer (BCP) Morning Service.  A big attraction of this service to those who attend is its traditional, familiar and well loved liturgy and order.  And yet they don't follow the service quite in the order that is actually in the 1662 Book.  

Which is all a long winded approach to observing that when I'm giving my wife notes on a service she has led I find myself often actually giving notes on the particular liturgical ticks and quirks the church has developed over the years.  

At the present church they're not much given to giving helpful asides to indicate where in the service order we are or whether to sit of stand.  When I've chatted to others I'm told this is because the attendees are all regulars and know how it works.  T

This reply seems to be blind to the fact that what the regulars know is how we do it here - which isn't actually what is in the BCP.  It also seems to me to be a self fulfilling prophecy in terms of getting anybody new in or being welcoming to those who don't know how it works.

Still perhaps I'm being over sensitive on this issue.  I say this because I'm increasingly coming to the view that church services aren't a thing that will attract in people who have never been to church before.