Here is my experience.

I am running a level 5 game for four players. One is playing an auteur... somewhat. The player likes the flavor of the auteur, but prefers the mechanics of the virtuoso, and is thus playing a virtuoso reflavored as an auteur.

Their character is somewhat of a variant of the default auteur flavor. They are described as a memetic entity who is, paradoxically, the embodiment of the adventure's narrative. It is by no means a new theme to me (e.g. Exalted's raksha, Mage: The Awakening's lore surrounding Path Acanthus, Changeling: The Lost's Gentry, Arcforge: What Lies Beyond's Fantasmics and Passages, Keith Baker's Exploring Eberron and its depiction of the fey plane of Thelanis), and I found the concept compelling, so I allowed it.

We are one session into our game, and I do not like the player's execution of the concept. I do not quite "get it," and think that the more straightforward explanation of "auteurs are simply using magic to edit the story as they go along" would have been significantly more palatable. I have talked to the player about it, but came to no conclusive resolution; since this is a short adventure only three sessions long, I just have to deal with it.

Perhaps my mindset just is not equipped to handle overtly "meta" contrivances on the spot, during a tabletop campaign. Maybe it is because I do not view things in terms of "stories," "narratives," and "drama" to begin with, and find little inherent value in drama for the sake of drama.