Here is the thing...
When you learn a basic curriculum, sooner or later, if you are serious about yourself and your training, you are going to ask questions regarding two very related things: You are going to ask questions on what are the basics, what are they really; and you are going to ask questions on what is beyond the basics (which the word "basics" implies - that there is something beyond them). If you are of the nature and/or lifestyle where these questions are framed from within a martial paradigm, you are inevitably going to seek and do a type of training that is related to the development of basics, or the refinement of basics, in a martial sense but you are, unlike before you asked these kinds of questions, no longer going to settle upon training devices/drills that gave you the basics and the questions in the first place. There's going to be a departure of sorts - because there has to be.
In other words, once you gain a context (i.e. kihon waza), if you want to expand or develop that context, to answer questions you have on it, you have to move beyond that context to get the answers, as the context only gave you the questions. This is why, in my experience, whenever you see someone simply repeating the same training regimen that was introduced to them, over and over, for decades, you also see someone that has no questions and needs no answers. When this happens, training preoccupations are centered upon things like fame, rank, title, etc., and these things, rather than martial viability, are used to demonstrate to oneself the "validity" of their practice.
So, for example, a very simple example, you learn Irimi Nage, and after a while, you are no longer preoccupied with left foot here, right hand there, etc., and you certainly aren't going to let yourself buy into the notion of if you are shidoin or shodan or shihan, etc., that that means you and your practice are martially viable (noting that that is your concern), what happens? After a while, you start to take notice of what works and when, and why, and with whom. And this starts a new chain of investigation, one that has, from one point of view, nothing to do with left foot here, right hand there, etc., but from another point of view has EVERYTHING to do with left foot here, right hand there, etc. In the end, it's different, but it's the same, but it's different, etc. So, you end up doing things that are the same, but different, but the same, but different from kihon waza. And, depending upon where you are in your own investigations, what you see when you look at another's said investigations may appear to be different, may be the same, may be different, etc.
That said, my thing here is that once we accept that no drill can or should cover all of the aspects of a combative encounter, a person should look at such training and be able to say, "I see where that might be relative," at the very moment that they realize why and how it is different from that context that motivated such additional investigations in the first place. In other words, it's supposed to not look like normal kihon waza training, and the fact that it's not doing nor attempting to do anything that kihon waza does does not mean that it's not vital to one's overall training in Aikido.
I will offer the following examples - asking you to note how far the first drill looks from an eventual application of Irimi (i.e. how it looks nothing like Aikido or any Aikido that any "aikidoka" would like to do), but as you watch, you see more and more how Irimi is being studied deeper and deeper by the practitioner, how it is no longer merely being by assumed by the art or the context in which it is presented to neophytes.
Here Sean, believe it or not, is studying Irimi:
Here I am studying Irimi:
Here, notice how that moment of Yin energy, like in the link above, is the same - it feels the same, looks the same, is the same (focus on the last kokyu-nage of mine in the second rep):
After a while, things related to Irimi themselves start to be influenced by the new questions and the new contexts and the new answers. So, for example, kaiten and tenken start to be understood differently, and, in turn, these things come to change Irimi, ad infinitum. You then get new angles and new timings, new axis points, etc., and maybe it these stuff was there all along, but not for you it wasn't, and not until now. Thus, I can say, this is not how my teachers did Kaiten Nage, but it is, but it isn't, but it is, but it isn't, etc.:
After that, your kaiten nage, for example, doesn't look like others', don't feel like theirs, etc. Why? Cause it's yours. You've made the art yours. That's not a bad thing - that's supposed to happen. For that to happen, and this is what I think we should get, you aren't going to go on doing the same ol' things, but you are, but you aren't, etc. So, in my opinion, if you got things to say about Chris' video, negative things, I think they should be particular things, not things of doctrine, as the whole point was to delve deeper (i.e. deconstruct) into doctrine.