If you're only interested in how Aikido is evolving martially, then you cannot speak of how it evolves as an art. What you speak of is expanding the art laterally and not vertically. Adding more waza, swordwork, competition, etc, expands the Aikido to encompass more, but it does little to bring it to new heights. Sometimes, I think when you go to far laterally, then you create a new art. I think of Yoseikan being one example, in my opinion. Is Aikido an evolution of Daito-ryu, or a new art created from it? Furthermore, the founders of Aikido and Judo seemed to want to "trim the fat"; that is they cut out techniques, leaving what they thought was the only the most efficient. I think what people like Roy Dean seem to be doing, is the opposite; going backwards. In Aikido, for many, seems to be going backward. Instead of going after what Ueshiba was going after, many focus instead on trying to do what he and his students did, or adding what they the was a mistake for him to leave out (kicks, punches, grappling, swordwork, etc.).
I view Aikido as an evolution of Budo, not the opposite. Aikido does what the original concepts of Budo meant to do - stop the spears, stop the conflict with as little violence as possible. So, in that sense, it is obvious that in order to look at the evolution of Aikido, one must look where it has come from, consider all the aspects; the spiritual, moral, intellectual, and physical, and most importantly, where it is going.