By proof-surveyability I understand the fact that a human user could "trace" all the details of a proof. There are things that are not easily traceable. For instance, an SMT proof is based on specific heuristics that are then translated into the prover. In that situations, it may be useful to have easy mechanisms (not need to be expert to have them at your disposal) to scan why the proof failed or examine the internal structures of the proof procedure.
I was wondering if Lean enhances this kind of proof surveyability in contrast to Coq or Isabelle. I get the impression that this may be the case skimming through A Metaprogramming Framework for Formal Verification.
If I understand proof-surveyability or -traceability correctly, then by definition, a fully detailed proof is "100% traceable", whereas just stating the result (e.g. a lemma) is "0% traceable".
In that case, I don't see why Lean would improve over Coq or Isabelle, or any other tool whose core purpose is to check correctness of a fully detailed proof. Such tools often provide means to increase automation, which is convenient, but arguably reduces traceability, depending on how the additional proof steps are represented. E.g. a Coq-like tactic can increase automation, but traceability can be "recovered" because the steps the tactic infers can be represented in the same way the explicitly provided steps are represented: as proof rule applications or deduction steps.
The latter part is difficult for SMT-inferred proof steps: SMT solvers can achieve a much higher degree of automation, compared to proof checkers such as Coq, but at the expense of traceability, because its "reasoning" is much more technical and less human-like/deductive.
As a side remark: this difference between proof checkers and SMT solvers reminds me of the difference between classical and AI-based image recognition. The former is less automated/efficient, but easier to trace/explain.