To be fair, I've never read any of the original Arthur Conan Doyle novels so I'll take your word on it. I've heard that he famously hated the character of Sherlock Holmes and didn't understand why people found him so fascinating, to the point of trying to kill him off just so he could move on. So I can see the angle there.

But the thing about BBC Sherlock is, it's presented as a classic mystery story. They show Sherlock gathering clues, they give you some peeks into his thought process and what catches his attention, as if to say, "you should be paying attention too, this is potentially really important!"

Then later they go, "actually, the solution all hinges on this thing we just now revealed and that you couldn't have possibly predicted. Hope you enjoyed being taken for a ride, dipshit!"

And it's not really enjoyable to re-watch, knowing the solution and trying to spot the clues and foreshadowing; because in the end, what little foreshadowed there was adds up to fuck-all.

I'm on my Nth re-watch of House, which is really interesting by comparison because it was inspired by the same real-life person that was the inspiration for Sherlock. In spite of any other criticism that it deserves, I think it actually handles this aspect pretty well.

The viewer isn't supposed to actually understand the medicine, but the resolution of the case almost always leans on something that was mentioned by the patient, or just shown in passing, during the first act. Knowing the solution actually makes it more fun to re-watch, because you can spot exactly when this happens, and it's brilliant.

Christie deliberately breaks Knox's rules, and for that matter, Willard Huntington Wright’s Twenty Rules usually seeing them as a challenge of how to include such features without alienating the reader. In some cases, for instance, the culprit is the maid or butler, but the character is well established before she is outed. In other cases, there are secret passages, or even affairs of state that might or might not figure into the mystery.