Max, the one thing that I would be concerned with is, that to get such a small radius in such a wide ski, they will all have very wide shovels (like 140mm etc).
You have a naturally relatively narrow stance even on piste, for slower and shorter turn powder skiing (like in the trees), you definately want to keep it that way.
Again, I share this trait. I would feel like the tips would be banging together - or even not allow my desired stance. For a wide deep powder ski, as above, I have chosen the 185cm 125/95/113 DP Wailer 95. Because of the dimensions, I would prefer this over something like the Zag gold 93.
Yes, the sidecut is much larger @ 24m, but I think that your criteria are flawed. These wide skis with short radius seem to be designed for cross use for some level of carving on piste. You just want a deep powder ski that will be very maneuverable in tight powder trees. I think sidecut helps a lot more on packed snow than in powder. In powder, it is more of the flex of the ski and technique that counts for turning.
As you know, I share your appreciation for clean carving and HH's purity of technique on hardpack as superior. But, you also know that I am not one of his brainwashed suckers. I don't agree that the same technique is always the best in powder or bumps.
In big mountain, high speed, long radius turn type of powder skiing (especially with wide boards with lots of float), I find that a technique similar to carving on hardpack works great [including proper WC (as taught in PMTS and opposite TTS) extension throughout the turn and flexion for release, without an opposite up-unweight (extension) and skidded first half with sinking into the turn.
But, in short swings down in the powder, I find that a more traditional "two footed as one platform" brushed "carve" with up unweighting together with retraction, also works great. And, for this, sidecut is not only less important, but, as mentioned by some above, perhaps detrimental in terms of hooking etc..
[BTW, at the end of ACBAES 2, HH describes and even demonstrates just such a traditional technique - so he's a little full of it, or has changed his mind, when he says that the same technique can/should be used everywhere. As great as his gift of WC technique elucidation to the masses has been, it is contradictions like this that allow me to view him differently than his "devoted".]
Just my opinion for what it's worth.