In somewhat reverse order:
Subverting expectations with a false/flawed narrative is fine, and doesn't necessarily lead to outrage. It's all about how the subversion and eventual reveal take place.
I can envision several different scenarios that can accomplish this end. I'll share two.
1. Make it evident that the characters providing exposition have a flawed/partial understanding of the systems they are discussing.
2. This is best done subtly and can be a nice device to provide an air of mystery and provoke curiosity. The reader has a gut feeling the world isn't quite as the characters make it out to be, but at the same time they don't have enough information themselves to discern what is really going on. This can build some nice tension which can be parlayed into a satisfying resolution.
3. Commonly I see this done with each character having a few small fragments of knowledge about the system. The totality of these fragments allows the reader to understand enough of the system to make the world and surrounding events plausible/believable, but not enough that they fully understand what is going on. Essentially, the reader is 'in the dark' along with the characters, but by synthesizing their collective knowledge the reader is a bit more enlightened. This often leads to a nice payoff down the line when there is a big reveal simultaneously impacting the characters and reader. Often this is very satisfying, as the reader can directly empathize with the impact the reveal has on the characters while also having a 'mind blowing' experience as their synthesized/meta knowledge allows them to see the far-reaching implications of the reveal which are well beyond any individual character's ability to comprehend.
4. The 'wrong' way to do this would be to have a seemingly authoritative figure provide a flawed narrative. This can make the reader feel like they were intentionally mislead by the author and lead to anger and frustration. (This can also be done well, but it sounds like this isn't what you want to go for)
5. Provide a plausible narrative only to later subvert it with an equally plausible true narrative
6. 846
This often looks like subtly nudging the reader to believe x is going on, even though y is actually happening. As long as the facts shared with the reader fit x and y relatively equally, this usually works well without frustrating the reader
7. This is essentially the "I should/could have seen it all along!" narrative device. As long as the subversion does not appear to be an arbitrary or contrived plot device but serves some emotional or narrative purpose it usually is well received.
8. You may be interested in the book Three by <PERSON>. It does this incredibly well and is a great read imho.
9. This can also be done in a somewhat asymmetrical manner; providing a dubious narrative only to later subvert it with something more plausible, or vice versa.
If you want more straight forward exposition, it doesn't need to come from a main character.
A way this can be done is with a mysterious and/or evasive source of authoritative information. Sometimes this takes the form of ancient tomes, clues, or rare but significant events that reveal to the reader and/or characters scraps of truth about the world around them. This can also take the form of a sagely or experienced character that briefly enters the plot at various points to provide advice or influence events, all the while revealing information (either directly or indirectly) about the world's systems. These characters can take many forms, being 'master puppeteers', enigmas, or role models and can vary in their development and relevance to the overall plot, with some remaining shrouded in obscurity while others becoming main characters or playing a pivotal role in the plot. Lots of flexibility to explore here.
I think <PERSON> and <PERSON> from The Lord of the Rings movies (yes, I'm sorry) are good examples of such characters. For example, you don't learn everything about the Nazgul immediately, you just know they are bad. Then through a combination of sage characters and significant events the truth of who the Nazgul are and what powers they possess slowly unfurls.
Ultimately, I think this comes down to how you want your readers to experience the narrative
Do you want them to experience it from the relative viewpoint of the characters? Then little exposition beyond what the characters themselves know is needed. The reader is going to start in the dark and some things may seem jarring or arbitrary. That can be ok if both the reader and characters are going to gain in their maturity and understanding of the world as the story progresses. Or maybe your characters are going to remain relatively static in their understanding, in which case many events will simply go unanswered.
If you want them to experience the story from a somewhat meta perspective, then you could pursue any of the options discussed above. 805