That's exactly what I meant, yes. The player just changes the inputs and watches what happens, but there's a specific desired outcome and the connection between the two is obscured. Maybe I'm just not that smart, but I could use help (from the game) making that connection.
The two key ideas you present were immediately obvious, but the inherent imprecision of guessing the various angles and distances between objects means there is still going to be a lot of trial and error, which goes against the very precise nature of the puzzles themselves. The arms follow a very specific, clean pattern but the player must "guess and check" out of a finite and discrete but rather large possibility space because that pattern is hard to follow, especially at higher speeds.
It seems like you could go one of two ways. You could make it less precise, more messy, and more silly. Or, you could give the player tools to make better decisions within your very. The first way is simple and could be pretty fun. Turn the integer inputs into a dial or something else imprecise and with continuous values. Maybe even add noise or other interactions, like bouncing off of obstacles. Maybe let the player build the arm in whatever configuration they want.
The second would be more appropriate for what I think was your intention. You can give the player (optional) tools, like streaks on all arms to help visualize, or maybe a polar grid for reference, or maybe the option to scale the speed or scale it automatically. Again, these can be optional to remove clutter, but they give the player better information. As it is now, the player only really feels the difference between "fast" and "slow" or CW and CCW, but they have to give that feeling a number somehow. How do I choose between, say, 1:3:5 and 1:5:7?
Of course, if trial-and-error is the goal, you could just shrink the possibility space. Or, add more in-between levels that teach these differences before testing the player on harder levels. Or some combination of all of these, or none of them.
Good job regardless. There's definitely potential here, if you do keep working on it after the jam or reuse the idea in other games. Sorry if this is more feedback than you were hoping for, but I promise I mean well.