Preamble: I'm taking my lead from the discussion that has been ongoing (the sketchiness of the Fi description vs. the ineffability of the processes that underlie it, etc.) But to save space, I won't bother citing all my antecedents. I'll just jump in with my own thoughts.
A simple example of how N-style "association" would work: You watch an action occurring in front of you, and in the meantime you're hearing music coming from another source. Suddenly for a few seconds the two synch up and the action seems to be occurring together with the music. The correspondence or synchronicity of the two initial stimuli generates a creative idea: Perhaps an idea for a new dance move, perhaps an idea for a story or research project based on the musicality of repetitive actions, perhaps a new way to interpret the lyrics of the music.
Ni seems to hold multiple ideas in a web, and then constantly churns those ideas, comparing them to one another in succession and trying to find new ways to fit them together. Occasionally two ideas "synch" in some unforeseen way, and a creative process is generated: A third idea is created that didn't previously exist.
With experience, the associations can be increasingly remote (the two foundational ideas can be increasingly dissimilar), in which case the synthesized idea will increasingly seem to come magically from nothingness. The creative process appears increasingly magical or like a visitation from on high.
Fi works somewhat similarly. Association works particularly well on the emotional level. A spider bites us, we yell, and we create an associative path: Spiders henceforth generate emotions of fear, revulsion, or whatever. Later in life, with increased experience and subtlety, those who enjoy playing with the tenuous paths of association can stack up hundreds of thousands of emotional values and become quite adept at playing them off against each other.
Example: There's a spider in the room; spiders are part of the natural process and I should take it outside the house and set it loose; but that is going to take time, and my wife will be entering the room in seconds and will be frightened when she sees the live spider, so I should probably just kill it immediately. So which value do I set above the other? And that sets off a process of winnowing and balancing: Empathy for my wife and my desire to spare her a fright, empathy for the spider and the natural process, and attachment to my own desires and a wish to stand up for what I believe in.
Naturally, Ni is going to be easier to experience and describe than Fi: With Ni, you play with a bunch of ideas, and suddenly a new idea or creative process emerges seemingly from nowhere.
Fi is a little tougher; it's not specifically creative. It's a decision-making process: constantly generating emotional associations over time, and then when a situation calls for a decision we suddenly winnow dozens or perhaps even hundreds of competing associations and related concerns (values) until a decision is made. At its best, the final decision may involve a synthesis or a compromise between opposing values. But in any case the process itself is going to seems somewhat "ineffable" because: a) the process is so personalized (the experiences and associations and values of each Fi-Dom are different); b) it's largely unconscious (the associative process works best in the unconscious, where associative shortcuts are easily formed); c) and the end result--the actual decision that is reached--is going to vary so widely from one Fi-Dom to the next.
But OrangeAppled recognized that the deliberative process of Ni is similar to what Fi does. And I have to agree. So I agree with those who feel that the Fi description is lacking in some key way. I agree that the description of Fi could be fleshed out somewhat to include some indication of the deliberative process--the creation of thousands of emotional associations and values across time, then a quick comparison and winnowing of competing associations to find a solution for a given situation.
Just a quick tangent: I think the description of Fi is right and even evocative in one respect: Jaguar's "Quick Reference Guide" in the OP is internally contradictory and helter-skelter in some respects. And I tend to feel that my Fi works similarly, contrasting and bouncing around among many contradictory values as it goes through the winnowing process.
Also, I think this associative process probably applies to the Fe deliberative process as well. Clearly Fe-Doms have emotional associations and values of their own; presumably they winnow through them to figure out which ones would work best for a given situation. I think the description of Fe suffers from the same faults as Fi: It doesn't describe where and how basic values are formed in the first place; it only describes how those values interact with the world. It would be fun to compare Ne to Fe and see if some kind of parallel can be drawn there.
But in the end if we are to flesh out Fi properly, I think we have to look closer at Ni (as OrangeAppled has done) rather than at Fe. Ni seems to have a fairly good picture of an internal deliberative process, and that's precisely what's missing from the description of Fi.
Just my opinion, as always. Just throwing it out there to see if resonates with anyone else.