I don't think so, what I'm trying to get at is that there are often large differences between people that do the same art and learned under the same teacher.
Take Goju for example, depending on whom you talk to Miyagi's Goju is somewhat different from KH's art---esp when you look at a fundamental kata like Sanchin---KH reportadly looked very much like the present day Uechi Sanchin--open hands with quick movements...as goes the story.
And nobody emperically knows exactly what KH own teacher was doing or how exactly he did it-----there is some pretty good good research and speculation--but that ALSO shows a world of difference in how current practice differs from extint "root" art.
Was KH practice invaild because it no longer looks much at all like Whooping Crane Kung Fu? (as an example)
Or look at Ryuryu--same teacher as KH--as goes the story, yet in many areas they differ...and AGAIN, its supposed to tbe the SAME teacher.
At least one of Miyagi's contempories--and as of 30-40 years ago was a well regarded and respected Naha-te type stylist yet he did not even use the "pigioen toed stance" aka "Sanchin stance" when he did Sanchin kata--said it wasn't really needed--as long as one "felt" the toes were pointed in. (as recounted in Mark Bishops book--the name of the guy escapes me)
There are some serious "differnces" if one wants to use that term, between Miyagis kata and that of his sampei in KH dojo.....Kyodoa.
And the Shorin schools are even farther removed from their roots than the many of the Naha te styles.....since they...like Shotokan..look and "feel" very, very little like the parent or "root" art....what can be gathered from that?
IMO...nothing at all substantive.
Point being is that where one wants to establish a "feeling" depends on where one feels like drawing the line.
Sure it can be argued...but IMO doing so beyond the broadest strokes is a waste of time.
I guess you could say that my question would be "sure it can be argued about...but WHY????