It seems of the three modes of inner sensing, the kinesthetic feedback is the most difficult to interpret, and the one requiring the greatest belief quotient to work with. Is that true, or do all these modalities suffer deficits in this regard?

All the modalities you speak of may be present or absent for all practical purposes, but to the extent they are present will be discernable to quite varied degrees from minimal to quite profound in some individuals but very few experiencing profound capability to perceive and experience intuitive information. It is correct to say that those with only kinesthetic awareness of information beyond the self are at a disadvantage because that is the least interpretable mode of perception because it is a blunt instrument, it is vague and quite non-specific. So there must be a kind of inner training coupled with an awareness of possibilities and often reinforced by inner knowings to help guide the process through which people can couple kinesthetic impressions with a purposeful search for truth to associate such impressions with thoughts, and when the signal comes in tandem, begin to shape a kind of dialogue using thought to pose a question or consideration that will be answered in the body kinesthetically as the output of intuitive sensing of information from the higher self. That will be less clear and more uncertain than someone receiving a visual impression showing something in actuality, or symbolically, that is clearly interpretable to draw meaning from directly and often in a highly specific way. So this discussion brings into focus the nature of the impairment being experienced across the board by people in the degree to which they can perceive things accurately through a multimodal sensory awareness, or have only a few or a single mode of sensing, often with a significant restriction of its capabilities.