RealQM as DFT without KS vs Foundations of Chemistry?

Density Functional Theory DFT is commonly viewed to be the Operational Foundation of Chemistry OFC.

DFT is based the Hohenburg-Kohn Theorem HK and the Kohn-Sham Model KS. The 1998 Nobel Prize in Chemistry (1/2) was awarded to Walter Kohn for developing DFT. 

HK states that ground state electron density $\rho$ uniquely determines a (fictitious) external potential $EP$ which determines the wave function $\Psi$ and so the ground state total energy $E$. The proof is a  very short non-constructive argument by contradiction, which gives no information about the connection from $\rho$ to $EP$, $\Psi$ and $E$. 

The map $\rho \rightarrow EP$ can be compared to the map $T\rightarrow F$ between temperature $T$ and heat source $F$ in a heat conduction problem, known as an inverse problem which is unstable or ill conditioned in the sense that small variations of temperature $T$ can give rise to big changes of forcing $F$ (through the action of the Laplacian as differential operator).

We thus expect that the identification of $EP$ from $\rho$ is ill-conditioned and thus without physical meaning unless some form of stabilisation is enforced. But that is not included in HK.

This means that DFT as OPC does not change if HK is simply omitted, because HK does not contribute anything of physical substance. HK is used as a way to legitimise DFT by pure logic without physics, and successfully so since DFT is viewed as OFC. 

The proof of HK is very short and simple and can be compared with a proof of "Unique Existence of God" starting from an assumption that "God is Perfect" and concluding that "perfectness implies both existence and uniqueness" proving the claim. Such an argument tells nothing about the possible role of a God in the World, and forgetting about the proof changes nothing real. Similarly, forgetting HK changes nothing real. Only formal legitimation.

The constructive part of DFT is KS which is a model of one-electron charge densities attributed to a given common density $\rho$, which allows computation of electron kinetic energy. KS is also an inverse problem where a one-electron distribution carried by $\Psi$ is sought to be identified from a common density $\rho$ mixing one-electron densities. KS attempts to solve a very difficult ill-posed problem. The success must be unclear.

Comparing RealQM to DFT/KS we find that RealQM as based on a structure of non-overlapping one-electron charge densities, which is not destroyed,  does not need any KS and so eliminates the main difficulty of DFT. 

RealQM can thus be viewed as a radically simplified form of DFT, where KS has no role to play. Is this an argument which can help the review process of RealQM for possible publication in Foundations of Chemistry?