"One thing is niggling me about your cooking analogy. You're employed as a scriptwriter so the comparison should really be on a professional level. If I went to a restaurant I would expect the chef to be able to say their dish is 'delicious' or 'exciting', because it's their job to make it that. I think you writing a spec is closer to the chef deciding what dish he wants to try to perfect, before he starts trying different ingredients/methods etc. And at that point, it's rare for most chefs to be working without support from previous chefs. Which is like you saying 'this spec is Spooks crossed with Animal Hospital'."
I quite like the 'X crossed with Y' setup, as a means of selling your idea, although I think it's a bit frowned upon if you do it too blatantly. Maybe it's best to try and subtly lead the person you're pitching to come to that conclusion themselves. Like 'Inception'.
Re. the 'delicious' or 'exciting' thing - see, I think it's a bit presumptuous to give that sort of description before the actual script has been read (bear in mind we're talking about outlines here, where the actual script is yet to be written. It's a bit like when dads say 'I know a joke, and it's a really funny one!' Because that's up to the listener to determine once they've heard it. More specific descriptions of how you see the final product, be it script or meal, are probably more balanced and helpful.
MEAL: I wouldn't say 'this meal is going to be delicious!' But I might say 'this meal is going to be a bit more coriander-y than most people like, but the sauce is a bit richer/darker than I normally do it. which should balance things out a bit'.
OUTLINE: I wouldn't say 'this crime drama is going to be really exciting and dramatic!' because, well, you'd hope it would be anyway. But I might say 'the show has a murky, noirish feel, although its rural setting allows a fresh take on the old noir tropes'.
OH YES I SAID TROPES