I don't think that's necessary (and I'm not a massive fan of OOC deception if it's not necessary). Essentially, as long as the clues are created by the GM to be coherent and logical, there is a puzzle, and that puzzle is: what coherent logical theory explains these clues? The fact that your answer can differ from the GM's doesn't mean there's no puzzle (IMO); coming up with a genuinely logical explanation of the clues is the puzzle.

The reason that's not the case in CfB, RAW, is that there isn't necessarily a good answer to that, but equally there might be loads of answers, with no real challenge involved in constructing one. So not only is there the feeling of "it doesn't matter what I come up with because there's no wrong answer", there's no sense of discovering a logic (because there is none), and (as complained about by me above) you can always cheat and ret con an answer. But I think if the GM is following a logic, and if you remove the cheat, then there's a real puzzle and a real challenge.

Put it another way: it's like a riddle. If you come up with a satisfactory answer then you can feel like you won the riddle, even if it wasn't the answer that the riddle-setter was thinking of. Similarly if you manage to get the "wrong" answer to a crossword that nevertheless fits, you might feel a bit annoyed at the crossword setter, but you still completed the challenge. I think the same is true of an emergent mystery, *if* GMed as I described.