What you are saying makes logical sense, but I don't think it makes practical sense. For example, Fe enjoys relationships, but they are different from the kind of Fi relationships. I know Fi is defined as having to do with relationships, but Fe does as well. It is the feeling function that connects people. An ILE with Fi polr is not good at Fi feeling, but they still value and care about Fe feeling. If anything, I think a better argument is that an ILE, such as supposedly Aushra is, would struggle explaining Fi or working it into the theory in a neutral way.
In this way, I think you are right that F types would understand and explain it better. But I personally think Socionics is more of a Ti way of trying to explain human behavior and personality, which makes Fi really difficult to understand or describe and is probably poorly described because Fi isn't really about relationships any more than Fe is, it's just a different kind of relationship. It's similar to how Ti can be rules or laws that people follow, where Fi can be feelings people have towards each other that aren't meant to be changed or tampered with and are like emotional laws.
Fi seems like an emotional prison to me and not a good foundation for a relationship, but I clearly do not value it. So I personally have a hard time seeing it as about relationships, rather than about some kind of Mob Mentality where you are supposed to have certain feelings towards certain people that aren't supposed to really change. I think in a simple way, that can more easily be described as valuing relationships because your connections with people are not volatile, but it's also just a different way of relating with people to begin with, so basically then it implying Fe doesn't involve relationships (when they are just "different" relationships) is misleading. Does that kind of make sense?