I may be off-base here, but the original quote is "seeing what we do as waza-related" in contrast to "sensei-related". In other words, Professor Goldsbury doesn't see aikido as a sui generis creation of one man, whom must then be emulated (either directly or via a lineage of transmission) in order to be able to do it, but rather as a much broader set of body skills (which is another way of saying "waza") which can be learned from a broad number of disparate teachers, such as Akuzawa, Ushiro, yourself, Sigman, etc.
I think we need to be clear about the distinction between "aiki" and Aikido. Kuroda, Akuzawa, Ushiro, Mike S, Dan H, Toby Threadgill, Don Angier, etc all do arts that are based on "aiki". None of them do Aikido (although some of them have done so in the past).
The Founder gave Aikido a certain form as a foundation for training. He created a certain way of training. All this was distinct from what had gone before. In that sense Aikido was the creation of an individual, Morihei Ueshiba. While having a fair amount of room within its boarders for stylistic variation, personal approach, etc If one strays too far from the form created by the Founder it's not Aikido any more. It might be great Aiki. In fact it might be better "aiki" than what the Aikido folks are doing, but it's still not Aikido.