We find a discussion of Kito ryu as the study of In yo ho, with direct correlation to Ueshiba's pursuit in Daito ryu's aiki in yo ho, with the advice that one cannot pursue one or the other, but must maintain the union of opposites to be effective.
Can this also be read as "one cannot pursue the in yo ho of Kito ryu or the in yo ho of Daito ryu, but must maintain in yo ho to be effective"? Possibly as a description of how the essence is more important than the form?
Against outside pressure, Ueshiba's pursuit of effective power as the core of Aikido would withstand the current demands, would withstand critical review for internal power and aiki and he would in fact, get along with and have more in common with those pursuing that as the foundation of their aikido than the current methods of the majority practicing the art.
Of course I'm not as scholarly on these things as you and a lot of other people are, but similar to Jason, I wonder if O Sensei simply wasn't concerned with everyone "getting it;" perhaps having the view that people will tend to fall into whatever role that best suits them?