That is difficult, because the people paying attention were already deepest in the research already, and they got a feeling this was different and then pushed for proof. For me, I was into conspiracy research and following their threads, then followed the 'pros' poking into the new guy/s and debating, just before the team started signing off as Q.

I started following after the leads were more convinced than not, and the crumbs were all valid, corroborating but not rehashed older material. The more solid proofs began with the near-simultaneous POTUS Twitter posts, then timing and crumbs around significant events that provided better explanations than the official narratives, such as the vegas massacre and subsequent SA housecleaning. The insider photos from the WH and AF1 were golden, and then asking POTUS to use particular words was fantastic, these were winks and affirmations that Q was in there. But to serious researchers, the crumbs themselves were proofs, as they led autists to tie things together that had not been clearly connected previously and framed out the most plausible paths of corruption that anyone yet had uncovered. Validation of pizzagate and other prior lines of investigation was valuable, but jumpstarting the connection threads from those to new faces and names was even more so.

I followed through chans to voat to here and kun, with gab and telegram along the way, waiting for TrumpSocial to be available on my machines and still tracking my areas of specialty/interest within them. Now, folks who are newer will have different points of entry, but I would hazard that their convincing started before they dug deeply, so they might not have a clear 'aha' moment as much as an "I thought so" confirmation. Most people don't have dramatic Eureka Boom instants, even though that makes for good TV...