1. I meant to cite this very interesting comment of R' Menashe Klein in the earlier post (this also relates to my series on "Precedent and Autonomy"):
quoted in Elyakim Rubenstein - "On the life and works of the Chafetz Chaim" in Yitzchak Elan Steinberg, ed., Beracha Le'Avraham: A Collection of Articles in Honor of Rabbi Professor Avraham Steinberg's Sixtieth Birthday (Jerusalem: Old City Press, 2008), 461-475
2. As I once mentioned, it is interesting that we have no record of any of the shiurim that the MB gave as RY in Radin. Mishpacha had an interview with R' Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg awhile back wherein he said:
The Chofetz Chaim’s approach was simplicity. One must first master the simple text with Rashi and Tosafos. I don’t ever remember him getting excited over a shtikel Torah, a good intricate vort. But I do recall him enthusing over solid study."
which I think does much to explain the above. The Chafetz Chaim's genius was in the careful way he gave over the peshat of the sugya. He did not focus on developing new chiddushim.
3. There seems to be a mistaken assumption that there was some type of competition between the kulot of the Aruch Hashulchan and the chumrot of the MB which the MB somehow "won". This is incorrect on two counts.The target audience of the MB was chiefly the layman (see introduction to MB), whereas the target of the AS was the Rabbonim (See Mekor Baruch V. 3). In this respect, one can say that both seforim reached their target audience as the AS is still very much studied (and perhaps preferred) among the Rabbinic elite, whereas the MB remians the sefer of choice for the laymen. It is also a mistake to refer to the MB's as a machmir. I refer the interested reader to Benny Browns groundbreaking article on "'Soft stringency' in the Mishnah Brurah: Jurisprudential, social and ideological aspects of a Halakhic formulation. "