Hey guys--I cannot tell you how impressed I am that you are willing to go out and experiment with these things. That's what we all should do--all the time--but too many people refuse to do anything that may appear to conflict with their belief systems. I look forward to hearing what your experiments lead to!
Just a couple thoughts. First of all, I suggest that it is a dangerous thing to focus too much on the hips, and their relationship to the feet. What matters for balance is the CM, and the hips are definitely NOT the same thing as the CM, even though their "massiveness" does, of course, have a great influence on the CM. Still, it is possible for the hips to be behind--even way behind--the feet, while the CM remains directly over the feet. Visualize a deep racing tuck, for example, with the hips way back, but the torso, shoulders, and arms stretching forward to compensate.
This difference between hips and CM becomes particularly relevant whenever the knees are deeply flexed--as in that tuck position. That is why I suspect that some people have suggested that this "feet moving forward" (the "X-Move"!) concept applies more in a retraction transition than one with extension, or at least, no retraction. It does not! It just looks perhaps more obvious because the retraction (leg flexion) moves the hips back--but it does NOT necessarily move the CM back. And a lack of retraction does not change the effect of, or the need for, the feet to move across the hill beneath the CM in the transition.
Second, and more important yet, please do not consider this movement to be anything even resembling "being in the back seat." When it is done properly, it is simply the result of "taking off" from the end of the previous pressure/shaping phase, and "landing" at the beginning of the next one, in perfect balance. If you have do make any effort to pull yourself forward, at any phase of the turn, you did it wrong. As I've suggested before, even the movement of the feet "ahead of" the body in the transition, the movement that appears most "in the backseat," is more appropriately looked at as a lateral movement--it is the movement of the feet toward the outside of the new turn, the movement that creates inclination--inward lean of the body, feet out to the side, in the upcoming pressure/carving phase. It only looks like a fore-aft movement when the body is facing and moving across the hill in the transition. Likewise, the critical transition movement that creates "forward" is the movement of the body down the hill--which is more-or-less off to the side during the transition. This is the "Balance in the 4th Dimension" (time) idea that we've discussed--the understanding that these movements during the transition are best understood by the effects they will create later in the upcoming shaping phase.
So "getting forward" in the shaping phase begins as a lateral (down the hill) move in the transition, and accurate edging and inclination in the shaping phase starts as the "forward" (across the hill) movement of the feet in the transition. Balancing in the Fourth Dimension. Moving now to create an effect later. Through this lens, the "feet ahead" moment has nothing to do with being in the backseat. And "getting forward" has nothing to do with flexing the ankles, pressing on the boot tongues, or moving the hips "ahead of" the feet in the transition.
Experiment with that!