Here is a question of whether I should write a subsection called "outline of proof"/"method of proof" in a paper I am writing. I note that there is a similar question (Mathematical Writing: Proof Outlines/Overview in a Paper), but my reason of asking is different from the OP there.
I am currently writing the intro of a (pure math) paper (the math part is done), which consists of the subsections "Main results" and "Outline". I plan to add a subsection called "Method of proof" after "Main results" and before "Outline" in the intro.
The reason of adding this subsection are to briefly explain the method/approach I use in the current paper to the problem I am considering, compare the approaches I am using and I used in my previous papers, point out their differences and present a related intermediate result.
On one hand, I feel it is necessary to add this subsection because I want to let the readers, especially the editor(s) and the referee(s), know that why I used a different approach and a subtle difference between the two approaches. On the other hand, however, I am not sure if the readers, including the editor(s) and the referee(s), are interested to know. While the subsections "Main results" and "Outline" are a must in the intro, "Method of proof" is not. I try to be as concise as possible while conveying the idea and the approach in a comprehensible way.
Of course, I could just write and add the subsection and then submit to see whether the editor and the referee like it or not. But I want to know, in general, do they like it? After all, they are experts in the field and perhaps don't bother to know why I do it in the way I did.
I am not sure if the following information is useful or relevant: the paper has 60 pages. The results and its proofs are about 45 pages.