Jim, I don't see the slides, but am famliar with the European and US work being done, and I think the fundamental anomoly in your assumption is that for the diverging procedure the WX RADAR is the primary means of determining DR, whereas for the offset procedure it's the GNSS. The latter will therefore place you at a a more obtuse angle - using the proposed procedures with virtually abeam MAPts. Of course, for any given physical position - relative to the rig - the diverging procedure will require greater manouevering to resturn to the final approach track.
I think HC has a good point, and even now with the 'traditional ARA' the use of coupling, and GNSS to assist the process, raises interesting points on choice of approach direction and interpretation of achieved/desired offset e.g. use of the track-made-good bug (diamond in the 225, 'doughnut' in the 92) versus radar target orientation on the screen.
The work I'm familiar with taking place in the US will, undoubtedly , offer a huge step forward in safety for routine night operations - even though it's being developed for the instrument approach - and will allow the aircraft to be manouevred at low speed in a fully coupled state to the commital point (virtually.)