I missed the "intricacy" thing - all I saw was "Touch, Ind, Conc., +2 for moving image", but - yes.
A CrIm to represent "the memory" should (have the potential to) be crystal clear within areas of focus, and quite vague if well outside those. Changing/moving images require +2 magnitudes, check. "Making clear words"* is only +1 magnitude (p 144, CrIm guideline insert, col i, par 2), but adding "very intricate" images* is +1 magnitude more (col ii top). To represent an appropriate degree of clarity, I see at least 4 extra magnitudes required btr, and imo 5 would not be unwarranted, adding +1 "for complexity" given the specific effect (and its overall usefulness!).
(* I would hazard to say that the diff is one of clarity and distinction - of cheap AM radio quality music vs. high-end digital quality, of hearing a crowd from outside a door vs. using a shotgun microphone to zero-in on each voice individually. Without the "very intricate" aspect, the words might be clear but any subtle emotion behind the words would be entirely lacking, etc. Having "intricacy" but not "clarity" would achieve words as in a dream, conveying emotion but not understandable beyond that. (Parallels with different senses/situations becomes less easily explained, but should not be impossible to imagine.) So both clarity and intricacy are needed to replicate human memory - assuming the subject's memory caught all the fine details, which won't happen every time.)
I'm not sure I'd agree that is possible - to retrieve from "memory" something that was not remembered. "Overlooked", yes - if it was remembered and simply not conscously registered as important at the time. "Forgotten"... that's more problematic, and brings very modern concepts of brain function/memory/remembering into the mix.
The first problem is that a typical CrIm "image" puts no emphasis on what the original viewer was focusing upon, and if it is to represent "memory", then that emphasis/focus is needed, perhaps unavoidable. Within that area of focus, images should/could be very sharp indeed - outside that focus, not so much, tapering off to mere blurs and fog at the edges of the field of vision/etc.
For example, you are currently looking at your computer screen (or smartphone, or whatever). You see these words, read them - they are your focus, they are clear in your mind (and hence your memory). Peripherally, without changing your gaze, you may have been (partially) aware of the (relatively) distinct quote at the top of this post. If you didn't read it, did you notice if I had changed any of the words? (I did.) Do you ever truly notice, much less "remember" clearly, what ad is being shown in the advert section on this page, or at least anything more than the main large-font headline, meant to grab your attention? Could your "memory" retrieve any of the words in the post above this one, or of the administrative text in the margin to the right? Would your memory know my listed "Location" or the date/time I posted this before you specifically glance at it? Can you even "remember", without looking, what the first two words in this paragraph are? (They're pretty easy...)
But they weren't important to the meaning of that paragraph - and yet you do remember the gist of that passage. So "memory" is often a generalization, while details deemed "unimportant" at the time of perceiving are discarded in favour of a broader, more generally holistic memory with significant landmarks sprinkled throughout.
You remember dancing with someone. Do you remember the entire dance, step by step, the music note for note, the crowd next to you face by face? Or does it blur with a few key snapshots or short poignant moments representing the larger whole?
Add sound and smell, and again the mind and memory can be quite selective over what is clearly perceived and what is overwritten by concentration on other things.* And to represent all that, both in clarity and obscurity, does not seem to be to be a basic task.
(Lastly, we could discuss "false memories" or flawed ones, where the viewer "remembers" something clearly and honestly but is simply wrong - but that's more a question of InMe than CrIm, and opens a very modern can of worms.)
Now, it's quite possible that the later, arcane viewer might notice something that the original viewer did perceive and remember but simply did not recognize as significant - a face that they did not know, or a gesture that they did not recognize, or a glance full of subtle emotion and great significance. It is this added complexity that supports the additional +1 for complexity that makes it +5 mags total, imo.
(* One mechanic you could use is to consider the Awareness and Concentration Ability of the original viewer - the better the Concentration, the better the main focus and the the less clear "other" aspects would be, as they are more efficiently screened out. Higher Awareness would call attention to changes in that "background blur", but would not (necessarily) sharpen it if it remained constant and un-remarkable.)
[size=85](Edit - format typo)[/size]