It's nice to see other ideas being looked at.
Pitch control certainly has its advantages. With active pitch control you have the additional advantage that you can use it to shut the machine down as well as use it for power( speed) control.
The thing against it is the inevitability that it will fail, if you accept that and have means of keeping the thing under control when it happens then fine. If you don't have a back up then I don't want to be near it in a storm.
It is very much easier making active controls as you have as much control force available as you need, the mechanisms can be relatively crude and simple and you still have enough force to make it work.
When you use cf force to control the blades directly you have a limited force to twist the blades and things need to be engineered well , that is where most home built mechanisms come unstuck.
Some of us have puzzled over these issues for many years and there are many ways to do the job, some are elegant, some are crude, some work beautifully and others just about work well enough to do the job. The environment in which you use it and the time you can spend on maintenance are also factors that you need to consider.
There is little doubt that pitch control is the best way to go, it works beautifully , for very large machines then it will be necessary to use servo control but with very large machines there is more initial money available for first class engineering, years of testing and also for back up and ongoing maintenance.
For the smaller machines I see it being more reliable with direct pitch control, If I had to use a servo on a small machine I would go for passive pitch control and servo yaw and get rid of that lousy tail that causes all those stresses due to gyroscopic, useless wagging about and all its other nuisances.
Thanks for sharing your ideas, it is always good to have new input. As materials and technology change old ideas that couldn't work can become possible, we need to keep looking at new ways.