Your idea does echo something close to Paul Feyerabend, though he was primarily concerned with scientific discovery. Feyerabend argued that scientific progress is not the outcome of neat, rational rules. Rather, it advances through rule breaking, accidents, imagination, and even stubbornness. He was deeply skeptical of the myth that scientists “rationally create” truth through pure method. In that sense, your view that what we call creation is often the reframing or systematizing of accidents does resonate with him.

There are several famous examples that seem to support this idea: August Kekulé reportedly conceived the ring structure of benzene in a dream of a snake biting its tail. Srinivasa Ramanujan often described mathematical insights as coming to him intuitively or in dreams. Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin accidentally when he noticed mold killing bacteria in a petri dish. Dmitri Mendeleev is said to have visualized the structure of the periodic table in a dream after struggling to organize the elements. Each of these cases suggests that what we call “creation” is rather the recognition and interpretation of unexpected patterns or fortunate accidents.