i don't know why this is even really being debated. to me, in the context of single moves, intuitive to me means either being able to deduce how a move works by its animation (includes hitlag, effects, character it's used by, etc), and i don't know how you'd give it some other definition. for entire characters being intuitive or unintuitive or whatever, you can either tally up how many unintuitive moves they have overall or you can count how many times you squint and tilt your head
there are obviously varying degrees here when reasoning and varying degrees of success, but usually even the slightly more obtuse ones are easy to figure out. the best part, to me, is that you're able to make educated guesses on how some moves work based on the aforementioned stuff regarding the animation, and each of these different factors can make up for another one's shortcomings.
to take zss's utilt as an example, the startup animation is clearly very fast, it looks like a "launching" animation since it looks like a vertical move, and you can tell where it's supposed to send you (if the launching part wasn't clear, get hit by it once and it's easy to see where it goes) clearly you won't know the specifics on how the initial hitboxes pull you in or which frame it comes out exactly or how it can be used in frame traps or whatever, but that's supplementary information and not entirely relevant in the context of reasoning this stuff out "intuitively"
if we take marth's fair as another example, the tip sends you up, yet he swings down? i don't think this trajectory is particularly intuitive when you consider the animation, but it's very easy to establish in your head how that hitbox works after getting hit by it once or twice, and then it just becomes some other move. plus, other hitboxes in the game establish that not all moves have an immediately obvious trajectory, and for marth in particular, there's no way to animate both the hilt (low-angle) and tip (high-angle) on the same swing, so it's whatever
you may have noticed that with the above two examples, even if it doesn't seem immediately obvious, you can just take a second look or two and figure it out based on either the animation (zss utilt implies vertical launcher) or it's very clear how the hitbox works when you consider the context of the character (marth's tipping isn't even really character specific, it's just sourspot vs sweetspot, which every character has, we associate it with a "tip" because it's visually clear that trajectory, knockback, etc. change)
then we have someone like sonic who has two moves that look almost identical but have completely different functions and options out of them that you can't reason out fully without reading things up, but at the very least it's general direction is clear and his position is pretty clear at any given time, so you can at least attempt to play around with it
oh boy and then we have lucario,
lucario is the one of the most offensive in this regard because his design makes absolutely no sense unless you go to the internet to search for information - not how to beat him, but what's happening on the screen at all. lucario threateningly has a seizure in front of you while throwing blue glitter in your eyes and it makes no sense visually, it makes no sense in terms of "feel", it makes no sense in terms of the rest of the cast because he is literally the only one that does this etc.
lucario gives you absolutely no indication on how he works. he has a "aura" (it's a meter idc) system which isn't even represented with a meter, his animations can't even be used as a way to tell or make an educated guess on how his moves work because they cancel out of themselves way too early to figure out what's going on, you can't make any assumptions on his character cause he's just been in one bad pokemon movie where he throws ki blasts everywhere and anyone who thinks this character is intuitive needs to stop
ugh