I believe I do have some sort of a reproducer, but I likely wouldn't understand even the reproducer script. I think it won't be taken well if someone files a bug, says "Here's a script that reproduces it", but himself doesn't understand what the script is doing.
For bug reports (at least IMO) a minimal example to reliably reproduce the error without any fuss is the basic building block. The reporter doesn't need to understand why it works let alone offer an explanation. In fact for complex projects more often than not any purported explanation will be subtly incorrect and actively misleading. If anything further "documentation" of bugs is unwelcome. Unambiguously demonstrate the defect and GTFO.
I'd still be wasting someone's time.
I'll probably put a write-up on my blog one day, though.
If an end user encounters an error while staying within the bounds of "expected usage" then the bug is guaranteed to be valid. You just don't necessarily know whose bug it actually is (for example a broken library versus broken usage of the library by the consuming program).