Brilliance, where art thou?

When annotating a game after the fact how to recongnize brilliant moves?

That would be a move that swings the advantage to the side making it, but only after the move is  seen.  Being seen, it limits the search tree, be it human or machine generated.   It has a sudden but not  foreseen BY  LESSOR MINDS impact to swing the game.  So, the less sophisticated the annotator's analysis, the more apparently brilliant moves appear.  So, if the machine could see all moves ahead, there would be no brilliant moves, since the value of all positions would be known.

Brilliance must therefor be relative to the one analyzing the game.  To a beginner, Fools Mate appears brilliant.

So how is the machine to condescend to our level and tell us what we should consider brilliant?  Perhaps it should adjust its commentary to at most scale it for the rating of the "smarter" player.  Otherwise, the "brilliant" moves he used to win will be scoffed at by the computer as  mistakes, inaccuracies or even blunders.

The victor must write the history.  No one else will read it anyway.