Polished. you are probably right. it may well be that the technique was designed for lead-follow purposes. on the other hand it might be that this is just incidental, albeit fortunate.
i guess that the technique represents the favoured trends of the time. people favoured this for good reason (consciously or unconsciously) - and there is almost certainly more than one reason.
which of the various factors (assuming these were analysed ??) was uppermost in the minds of those responsible for the standardisation, i do not know - this information seems to me (although I might be mistaken) to have been largely lost in the passage of time - such that all we can now do is to consider things de novo.
Who among us doesn't believe that we turn at the end of step two and not into it
well good question - i've heard it said on here - at least with regards reverse turns - that turn occurs after or just as placement of step two occurs. BUT if CBM is generated (ie torque is applied) on 1 and the L heel is released before the end of 1 how can turn NOT occur before the RF reaches its destination on 2 ? this also impinges on how much of a sideways swing from the hip is required to end in a " to side" position". I've heard it said that swing through such a side step only occurs in a forwards direction relative to the line of the hips. But that can only be true if the turn IS delayed until after placement of step 2.