I had a similar problem once, but with review rather than a walkthrough.
We had a complex document with a lot of unneeded content that was difficult to read (i.e. using the template from ISO and/or IEEE, depending on the time). We couldn’t get anyone to read it enough to sign off on it, which hindered the testing, since we weren’t supposed to do anything that wasn’t approved.
So we switched it up. We ditched the official looking documentation for a readable document. We reduced the length of the content by more than 90% by removing anything that wasn’t required for US (rather than required for the template).
And that wasn’t enough either. Finally, out of a bit of desperation, I created a “visual” document of our plan/strategy, starting with a mind map. Suddenly, the team was interested. They could see on just a couple of pages exactly what we intended to do or were doing. And they started offering feedback based on the few charts we offered, which improved our testing.
From there, we revised the “mind map” method a bit more to more customized visuals and models, but kept most of the documentation visual. The team loved it, and started producing more of their own model-diagrams for their own portion of the work (i.e. system design documents and UML-style drawings).
To sum up, I’m a huge fan of, as @testerawesome said, “Visual representation” as a supporting method of communication.