It's often times 50/50 between writers. Sometimes they know what they're talking about. Other times their intent and the source material do not align at all. The Destroyer from VHD who absolutely sucks at destroying the universe for example, or Chris Farnsworth repeatedly saying nanosecond is being literal without understanding what that means. "Yes, I am being literal about nanoseconds but also they're not FTL." Some writers have a tendency towards brain farts.
If you are in Nanosecond level reaction at all, you are scratching Relativistic to FTL, no questions asked. The author really made it obvious he has no clue what Nanosecond means...
i am a big proponent of WoG but you really have to look at the big picture when you use it
I get not using authoral intent though because the issue isn't really whether the author is right or not it becomes "is my interpretation of the author correct" which is a lot harder to argue at best and just straight up agenda at worst
Basically as long as WoG isn't heavily contradicting themselves or randomly adding shit in post that isn't just explaining an event that happened, I can accept it. If they are explaining an event and it's contradictory towards the event itself, then again you can ignore it unless they add it later on.