The Romans were very capable engineers. If you give them a few key ideas and steer them away from dead ends, progress can compress a lot.
Even if you have a blueprint, a bronze engine is still a major research project.
If you want something truly revolutionary, try the modern horse saddle and horse collar (and bit).
The problem is arriving at working knowledge of the tech in the first place. But that's clearly not a logical impossibility, merely expensive and dependent on lots of surrounding factors.
The obsession of a single rich elite, not economics, is precisely how much of early chemistry came to be.
And the next question is practicality. You can make a steam engine demonstrator from bronze. But bronze was expensive, and of varying quality. So your engine will necessarily be low-power, and too inefficient for practical use.
1) This idea has been debunked...a lot. The Romans were capable but they were nowhere near an industrial revolution
2) Necessity is the mother of invention. The Romans didn't really need an industrial revolution, or at least their power base didn't.
Precision didn't come to iron and steel until Maudsley's lathe, around 1800. It can be seen at the Science Museum, London. It looks like a modern lathe, but is quite different from its predecessors. It's on display, but not emphasized, and few people know its importance.
Today we think of engineering as a continuum, where you pull the technology you need from mechanics, electronics, materials science, and chemical engineering to get something done. That's a modern concept. For most of history, those groups barely talked. For a long time, there was a huge distance between science and engineering. Science was sort of an aristocratic hobby, and engineering was done by people who worked in forges and shops. It wasn't until the era of the steam engine that both sides started talking much. They had to figure out thermodynamics to get steam engines to work efficiently.