Array indexes starting at 0 is unintuitive for beginners, I would never recommend a programming student learn arrays starting at 1 just to make it easier.
Proper playing technique is often unintuitive for the beginning musician, but encouraging it for accessibility will be destructive to their progress.
Conceptualizing a new difficult concept in a way that makes sense to you is good, foregoing convention is bad.
We might say, that finding the Rosetta Stone hindered those who knew Greek trying to learn hieroglyphs.
I was deathly afraid to try woodworking until someone showed me how to construct familiar angles on the machines using basic trigonometry. After I had a tiny relationship formed, I was able to experiment on my own (and then adopt woodworking vocabulary, to become entrenched in that community).
I think using some arithmetic rules to entice someone who knows arithmetic, but otherwise is awkward around music theory, is an agreeable compromise to get them on the way.
The biggest win from that POV would actually be numbering the diatonic scale degrees starting at 0 for the tonic, and the diatonic intervals starting at 0 for the unison. Unfortunately, it heavily conflicts with all sorts of existing notations. But once you think of the third as a "2" interval, the fourth as a "3", the fifth as "4" etc. you can arbitrarily add intervals together and to scale-degrees, without having to constantly correct for the archaic 1-based counting.
V7 -> I
(x+2, x+5, x+7, x+11) -> (x, x+4, x+7, x+12)