For small problems, it's work flawlessly, e.g. when you need to find an odd number, the network will be in solution state 99,99999999999999% of the time.
However, large networks are loosing their quantum properties very fast. Large objects have no properties of quantum objects — this is the corner stone of QM. The network can lose solution faster than it can find it, so when you sample, most of samples contains no solution to the problem, so you need to be lucky.
Currently, QC math doesn't account this, so we have a "measurement problem", because physical reality doesn't match math abstraction, but mathematicians don't want to adjust their formulas.
If you want to develop intuition, just look at reproduction of double slit experiment in macro[0]. It's just self-interference.
BTW: If you have resources, can I ask you to help to reproduce Stern–Gerlach experiment in macro? We need fresh blood (and money for experiments).
The way I understand it now, is based on the double slit experiment. If you want to know the outcome of the "double spilt operator", you need to run it many times. The outcome of the calculation, is the combination of all the runs. The way to visualize is to think of the waves passing through.
QC itself is nothing more than chaining different operators, that influence how waves interact.