Well, I do question the sequence of events you describe, Fastman, although not necessarily their order of importance. Do you edge first, then balance, or do you balance first then adjust edge angle? Did the chicken come first, or the egg? Yes, if I want my ski to bend into any particular radius of arc on hard snow, there is only one edge angle that will, with sufficient pressure to decamber the ski, produce it. But I know of no skier who, prior to starting a turn, calculates, or even just "guesses," the precise edge angle he will need to produce the upcoming turn, much less who has a way of measuring that edge angle! Indeed, the movements, and the thoughts that produce them, are not sequential at all. You do not first set an edge angle, and then balance on it--you must do both, and adjust both, continuously and simultaneously.
Here are a couple other points to consider. First, if "angulation" is something we do for balance, then it would follow that, given identical forces, I would always angulate the same way. But that is clearly not the case. Picture one skier making two carved turns of identical radius and speed, on identical terrain, one on short, deep-sidecut slalom skis and the other on longer-radius-sidecut GS skis. The laws of physics require the forces involved to be the same. Therefore the angle of INCLINATION of the skier will be the same as he balances against the identical forces. But to get the two different skis to carve the same radius turn, he will have to use a higher edge angle for the GS ski--which will require increased ANGULATION. The only variable is the edge angle, and the skier's only way to adjust it is through angulation. He will "bank" more with the slalom ski, and angulate more with the GS ski, to create different edge angles.
Furthermore, on anything but rock-hard snow, other factors besides sidecut and edge angle determine the degree of ski bend (decambering). On soft snow, more pressure alone (centered on the ski) will produce a tighter arc, even with the same edge angle. The ski carves a tighter arc, and the skier will have to adjust something to remain in balance with the new forces. What will it be? Not angulation! Balance requires a move of the CM--an increase in the degree of INCLINATION.
The upshot? The edge angle is neither fixed nor predetermined. Expert skiers constantly move for balance--repositioning their CM forward, back, and left and right--while simultaneously adjusting and fine-tuning edge angle for optimal ski performance with angulation movements in the feet, ankles, knees, and so on. It's done, of course, by feel and experience, not predetermination or calculation.
I'm sure you know all this, Fastman, and that we are once again arguing over semantics. Both angulation and inclination affect edge angle, and both can affect balance. Inclination always involves a movement of the CM, by definition. Angulation CAN cause a shift in the CM, or not, depending on whether a movement of one part of the body is compensated for by a movement of another part or not. Depending on whether you prioritize the edge angle first and then move body parts to balance over that angle, or you priorize balance first and then move body parts to adjust edge angle, you may look at a skier differently. But they really are simply two perspectives on the very same phenomenon!
But I still maintain that one of these perspectives is more generally useful, from a practical point of view, than the other. I will propose one final activity to support my perpsective: Stand up and get balanced on one foot. Now, tip that foot up on edge, while remaining in balance. Tip it flat, and roll it from edge to edge. Which of the two movements are you using to change that edge angle? It can't be inclination! To me, that feels like what I do when I'm skiing--adjust my edge angles with my feet and ankles, knees, hips, and spine. But of course, to demonstrate your perspective, you could have us stand on a platform that tips left and right, where we would have to use angulation to remain in balance, if only in the foot and ankle. Both perspectives are valid, and neither is "wrong."