I do not see it as a matter of spoonfeeding, but one of consistency. I there is a roll out to 500 trainees and i am using 5 trainers/smes to teach 10 sessions each, I would like to assure some consistency so i can evaluate from session to session/ trainer to trainer. In addition there can be the need for consistency over time to handle stragglers, new hires, and cross organization uses. Having solid documentation is a bit intensive, but wide scale deployments can save a lot in ramp up time if you can shorten the curve for TTT.
When I hear the term "Facilitator Guide" I think of "Trainer Guide". Facilitation is way different than training and I hope I did not misunderstand.

On the other hand tho, i do not always need to be a SME in order to train effectively. I depends on the topic. There are degrees to what constitues a good facilitator guide.

Consistency of what people need to learn comes from solid, approved desired outcomes and a good outline.

Consistency of outstanding facilitation comes from talent management -- hiring/developing outstanding learning facilitators.

Difference between training and facilitation...in my opinion... a facilitated class is focused on the learner - what the learner needs to do, say, try, practice, etc. to learn; a trained class is focused on the trainer - what the trainer says, does, shows, etc. Which do you think has greater impact?

There's training content and there is facilitating the learning of new skills and knowledge. The former usually implies open brain, insert stuff. The latter implies facilitating someone through an entire cycle of learning that humans go through to connect with, explore, practice with, and apply new knowledge and skill. Again - which do you think is most effective?

Thank you everybody for your comments. They have been helpful.