I am sure, for the former. At least as much as basic translation can provide. Translating those kinds of answers isn't as hard as translating Ueshiba's spiritual talks. Which, then goes to your second question. You have all the students stating that they had trouble understanding Ueshiba when he talked about the spiritual stuff. But, using Chris Li's translation, it's understandable to me (and others) and actually points to specific training methods. But, it only became understandable when I started training Ueshiba's aiki and the more direct (non Stevens altered) translations became available. No dig against Stevens, here, as he is the one who actually stated his translations were loose and changed from the original direct meanings.
By correlation of personal experiences. I've found that there were specific exercises and training methods that Ueshiba taught specific students, all outside Tokyo hombu, that I have yet to see being shown or taught by any of the Japanese shihan sent from Tokyo hombu. (That just means I have yet to see it, doesn't mean it is nonexistant.) But, back to the specific exercises and training methods. Those were, at times, exactly what I learned elsewhere. They were, at times, very, very close. But, all of them were directly related to training Daito ryu aiki, i.e. Ueshiba's aiki. Not at all like Modern Aikido's definition of aiki. The problem I saw, though, was that each group had different parts of the whole (whole being defined by the entirety of what I was training, not the entirety of aiki training) that I was being shown. In other words, my training encompassed all of their scattered parts, not the other way around. I'm still learning and putting pieces together, and there are lots of places Ueshiba taught outside Tokyo hombu that could possibly have more pieces. Actually, probably do.
End of the day, though, Ueshiba's aiki, Sagawa's aiki, Horikawa's aiki, were all the same, trained nearly the same, but expressed in their own personal way.
So you have read some text, in translation, of material that not even the direct students themselves are comfortable stating that they understand, but it is so clear to you that you actually know what the specific training methods are?
Can you provide some details about these personal experiences you have correlated? Are you talking about your personal experiences that you have had travelling around Japan or something? Or are you talking about other's personal experiences that you have informed yourself of textually? It is the latter, right?
You are continually contrasting what you call "Modern Aikido" with something that you consider to be "Ueshiba's Aiki." I don't see how you have any logical basis to claim any knowledge of "Ueshiba's Aiki." CERTAINLY you do not have any logical basis to challenge someone who trained closely with someone who trained closely with Ueshiba, on what is or is not the essence of Aikido.
But I don't really understand why it matters so much. So "Modern Aikido" doesn't do it for you, and you've found some new way to train that helps you progress along a path that you like better. Why not call it, like "21st century internal power training," or "Internal Strength Methods Inspired by Various Japanese and Chinese Systems," or "Old men in t-shirts pushing on each other with confused looks on their faces."