There are, after all, only a limited number of ways to bend human anatomy.
But I think most aikidoka would say that aikido is more than the sum of its techniques. Most students of Daito ryu would probably say the same. To truly appreciate both the similarities and the differences in the two arts, I suspect that you would need to have substantial experience in both.
I have found that all the jutsu people I have met had a different focus to what I call Aikido.
They were into how to harm, how to disable etc. Justified by such things as budo etc as you define it. Logically saying it's for effectiveness etc.
All sounds good except for one major difference. Aikido wasn't done for such purpose. Budo was now described as the budo of love. The purpose was now based on the spirit of loving protection.
How to do Kotegaishe for example in a way where you don't rip the tendons of the wrist of the aggressor is thus a change in technique application. The same goes for all the techniques. There's a way to do them in order to cause pain or dislocation etc. or there's the way of Aikido.
Here's the corker though. The ones that don't cause pain or dislocation etc. are actually more effective in the sense that they are harder to escape from or counter. Of course based on degree of ability.
I'm not trying to change your mind but merely showing you an alternative view, well practiced.
So my view of effectiveness being a key question is that it's a non-starter for me. More important for me is why some people don't have this as their aim.