Martin, I did want to comment on one last thing you mentioned about. Ok. nobody get defensive!
My perception thus far is that PSIA is considerably more open minded about what good skiing is supposed to "look" like. This may be good or may be flakey depending on how you wanna look at it. the PSIA philosophy seems to be that a wide range of skiing styles are supported as long as certain key skills are being addressed(rotary, edging, pressure control, balance). There is a very open mind about what skiers look like as they acheive these goals. The PSIA seems to be, as I am coming to learn, fairly open minded and sort of a an open democracy that does not per say have someone or some group near the top mandating what good skiing exactly looks like. Some of these style differences can be attributed to different body types for sure, but I think there is plenty of wiggle room for more than that. The PSIA standard is not well established as far as what a skier should look like. Indeed when you watch a PSIA alpine team demo, every skier I see looks different from the other...almost completely different. Yes they are edging, rotating, controlling pressure, etc..with a high degree of skill, but they all look so completely different that some people might even be hard pressed to say they come from the same discipline just by watching them ski. As opposed to say the Italians that all have a certain look about them.
CSIA on the other hand DOES in fact have a body of people at the top that have set very clear standards for what they feel a skier is supposed to look like. They also talk about the basic skills, like as in PSIA and teach that way. But they have many finer points that they have decided are important to determine if a skier is executing on those skills correctly. And if you watch the CSIA demo team there will be more of a homogenous look to them as they have worked harder at acheiving finer sets of skills that brings them to the same page. Whether you agree with me or not that CSIA wants less ankle articulation then PSIA, the truth is that CSIA has a defined amount of ankle articulation(and members here have expressed what they feel is the current desired look in various phases of the turn). And many other aspects are this way. At least, this is the way the trainers and examiners I interacted with spoke.
I guess what I'm trying to get to is that I think PSIA is a little more open ended, and CSIA is a little more refined. I don't think either approach is right or wrong by the way. I'm just noting the difference. Personally I think that PSIA could stand to be a little more refined in establishing their standards and I think CSIA could stand to be a little more open ended, but that is not the philosophy that exists in either program so it is what it is.
There are some PSIA instructors which would fit right in to the CSIA standard, but there are many that would struggle IMHO to acheive the look that CSIA is looking for. When I started getting into PSIA I was a little nervous that my CSIA training would give the wrong look for PSIA. The examiner noted to me my Canadian looking skiing even. But I still passed no problem because PSIA bases on the skills, not the "look". However, I feel pretty strongly that many PSIA instructors would have to change their look to get through CSIA certs if they tried. I just feel CSIA has a more refined and standardized ski method than PSIA. IMHO this does not make either approach better than the other. I'm sure people from both philosophies will think that one way is better than the other for various reasons and I have no doubt in my mind that this email is going to trigger some defensive reactions and hyperbole including denial, but this is my last post on the subject..
Those are my observations. Do what you will with it.
ps - whoever posted the pics can you please post smaller ones so that my browser window does not have to scroll sideways to view all the text.