If one believes, as our Reformers, or at least the first ones did, that the church is divided into the Visible and Invisible Church, the second being the “real” church known only to God, then formal and incarnational aspects of “communion” seem of little importance.

On the other hand one has to have some form of structure even if only to determine who belongs to the fellowship and who determines that consideration.  A system based on subjective criteria and which reacts to temporary shifts in church politics or even theological emphasis is an unstable ground for church structure.

Seems like a pretty minimal criteria. Under that definition, probably most Christian churches would qualify as Anglican.

I think far too many reasserters I read seem to be confusing “Anglican” with “Christian.”  What constitutes a Christian church is not the issue here.  What is at issue is what makes a particular Christian church Anglican.  Different questions.