onyxjl, I think there is a lot of wisdom wrapped in your post. And some of it is at the crux of the various debates over this topic that we've seen here over the years.
If two approaches get to the same objective, then one could argue that they are equal in stature to the reaching of that objective. There are arguments around efficacy that can be made for one to be "better" than the other, but those debates are often along the lines of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. What is worse is when one argues that the other is "bad" or "wrong" because it's "different". Especially in approach. Often in skiing, this has seemed to me to be the case, and generates a lot of heat with very little light.
I disagree that video always clarifies what people are doing versus what they think they are doing. For example, you may think you are gently lifting and tipping your inside foot and I may think that I am simply tipping mine while allowing my hips to move across my skis. On video we may look virtually identical. Two different cues, similar results. Even if we look vastly difference, uncovered the cause of that difference can be much more challenging than many realize. My current example of this is Bob Barnes showing me how the movement of my hand/arm early in a turn impacted what the skis were doing at the end of that turn. Others would have tried to adjust my feet/legs to fix the effect.
I find a doctrinal statement about a single "real source of a good release" to be anathema. There is an implication that there is only one way (or one "best" way) to release a ski in a turn. Given my experience (36 seasons), I find this to not match what happens on-snow. That is why elite skiers use cross-over, cross-under (flex to release, as I understand it), and various other combinations as conditions, terrain, and tactical restrictions (like gates) indicate.
It is very nice to be able to hand much of the analysis and cue development to a third party as Max's comment does. However, for those of us who find the pursuit of knowledge stimulating and who also desire to understand so that we can communicate with others (as an example, those here who spend their time and energy guiding others to better skiing), the limited information that this grants leaves great lack. It, combined with "this is the right way" kinds of statements, leave no room for alternatives and growth for those who have a different perspective. They also can seem to be excuses for leaving questions unanswered that are posed by comments that seem to not align. (Note: I am not saying that they are
excuses. Only that they seem that way to those pursuing more information.)
Such comments are an appeal to authority that is not recognized by all as being authoritative, and thus doesn't help further the discussion.
I think this is further complicated by the fact that what people are asked to do, what they think they are doing, and what they are actually doing are often all different. This is why ski instructors exaggerate movements. This is also why I started the perception thread
The effect may be perceived to be good, but that doesn't mean that it is, that the approach works for everyone, or that the explanation and the actual action are the same. This is why there are so many questions around these ideas.
If one answer was obviously correct, don't you think that most reasonable people would recognize it and move on?