Thanks for giving us the formal analysis. It also states the point that has been mentioned: "The Control shaft (and associated mechanical elements) should be sized to this torque requirement accordingly - the Input and Control should be considered as parallel power paths rather than as 'power' and a 'control' elements respectively."
There's a reason that that document includes a CVT in the design to power the "control", because the power that goes through the control is the same as the power through the input, so unless you have a convenient high-torque high-power variable-speed electric motor you might as well use the main power source. Of course, if you use an electric motor then it''s quite similar to a Prius, and if you use a CVT then it's pretty similar to the Torotrak, or some other IVTs.
However, this device does have a new feature. There are two different control inputs with different properties, so by switching which one you're braking and which one you're controlling with the CVT you can either go in reverse or at top speed, but still with a CVT's output speed always being positive and less then the input speed. However, that makes it complex for no gain (you could just directly gear up the output of the CVT to do that), so it seems like the things that are new aren't good, and things that are good aren't new.