This doesn't make much sense. A 20% royalty is an absurdly high price to pay for an idea, for which you'd do all the execution; meanwhile, if you expect them to do substantial work as a "co-founder", 20% is absurdly too low.
Second of all, it doesn't matter. The biggest hurdle to being successful is getting started. "Getting started" necessarily entails finding an idea you're motivated to work on and a vision to achieve your goals. This guy has found one way to get started. If losing 20% of the upside is what it takes to get started, it's not a big deal.
Just remember you can't keep making decisions that give away 20% of your upside over and over, because you'll end up with nothing (barring extenuating circumstances).
The problem is that your 80/20 deal causes an adverse selection that attracts the lower-quality non-coders that you don't want.
If non-technical non-programmers like Evan Spiegel (Snapchat), Brian Chesky (AirBNB), and Steve Jobs (Apple) can hustle to find that 1st angel investor, or 1st VC funding, or 1st paying customer, that means they also have the street smarts to find an alternative solution to your very expensive 80/20 deal.
Even after the biz-idea guys hustle to get that 1st customer, they have to continue hustling to get the 2nd, 3rd, and so on customers to grow a viable business -- unless your thesis is that a new startup with 1 customer is enough to "flip" it to an acquirer like Google/Facebook/Microsoft.
This isn't the way to find the next Steve Jobs indeed, and that's not what I'm searching for. I'm looking for that consultant that has seen 4 clients wasting 8 hours a week on the same inefficiency. Someone who will get $2k for an idea and a number of phone calls, and a large kickback for sales (s)he makes in his/her direct network. This isn't the way to kickstart a $1bn company :)
I get your clarification now. I think some including me were thrown off by your "Premise 1: Investors/Incubators over-estimate their ability to pick good ideas/startups."
In your business opportunities of "consultants who notice a workflow inefficiency but would rather pay 80% to someone else to do the programming work for a new product", that landscape doesn't have "overestimated abilities" of investors. Instead, they don't even look there at all. They need to put more than $2000 to work on a single deal to make their due diligence time worthwhile. For their fund sizes, they're scouting the arena of potential huge $1b businesses. No non-techie founders of that type of business that had any street smarts at all would ever give up 80% equity of a company in exchange for an MVP. By design of your 80% cut, it would only attract desperate losers. That was the "adverse selection" I was talking about.
However, now that I've seen your other replies, your deal feels more like paying a "finder's fee" to the consultant for his/her business idea rather than attracting a cofounder that will share the workload of doing multiple years of hard work with you. Nothing wrong with this but I misunderstood earlier what you were trying to accomplish. In this case, maybe tptacek is right and your 80% is too low and you're underpaying yourself.
The chosen ideas will be idea + market research / inside info as to why it is a good idea. That has some value over a one line "Uber for X".