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 did not define "effective" in my post...
One can legitimately argue about whether destroying someone's wrist is "more effective" than simply taking the person to the ground. But there are many aikidoka who are unable to do either, and justify their inability with arguments about aikido's spirituality.
If Ueshiba had not been able to "effectively" handle real attacks from advanced practititioners of other arts, no one would have cared what he had to say. He would be remembered, if at all, as a Shinto mystic, not a martial artist. He may have seen aikido as a new kind of budo, but his results were impressive against the old standards.
If you want to study Shinto mysticism, that's your choice. Nothing wrong with it. But you're not studying budo if you're not willing to confront the effectiveness question.