My understanding and experience of Ni is that it's like a haphazardly incomplete mathematical proof. Ni can't/won't proceed line by line. 99% of the time the answer appears and Ni has no interest in proof itself, because it has the answer. It's agonising to have to go back and explain the reasoning line by line. In most cases Ni cannot provide the proof that leads to the answer, so it won't. Only when the Ni truly cares about the answer will it seek to find some proof, and the proof-seeking methods will very likely be unorthodox, random, and probably illogical to some degree.
The other thing about Ni is it can link and connect the most maddeningly granular of details and somehow create/access relevance or elucidation therein. The detail itself is so granular it may as well be invisible, to the point that, good luck verbalising it.
A question for MBTI experts: Would any fellow INXJs consider Ni as absolutely dependent upon (a) context? Is the nature of Ni intertexual?