Long story short, a long time ago (2 years) I had a research project, that for various reasons was not completed. Some months ago I came back to it and started trying new methods, state-of-the-art algorithms, some battle tested for decades, and some novel ones that came in the past few years (after the project got put in hiatus).
I don't disagree my method is naive, but it works fast and is more accurate than all the other ones. I need to mention, my method works only in a very, very niche subset of cases, all these other methods are designed to be general and work on arbitrary shapes, so my method outperforming other methods is not a great discovery it simply can leverage more assumptions than the other methods can.
I measured and tried a bunch of stuff and well, yes the method I came up with is really, really silly it's a naive approximation (it's definitely not an exact solution), but of all the other things I tried, this seems to solve this particular problem in this particular subdomain better than all the other algorithms I have used to solve the problem, based purely on the numbers.
If a paper comes out of this, the paper would essentially be "here's how you can leverage this silly math fact to come up with a rough approximation of the true solution in microseconds, vs hours or days for an exact one".
With that being shared, I don't know if or how I can pitch or sell this to my advisor, considering that after so much time I have come with a lot more work done, just to say that the method he didn't like the first time works better than the state-of-the-art algorithms (for this specific case).