To avoid confusion I will refer to the worktable supports as posts and the outfeed table support as a tube(telescoping).
Having the pivot in line with the blade minimizes the blade tilt adjustment. The blade offset deviation due to table tilt is proportional to the radius from the pivot to the blade. If the slot is offset from the pivot, that radius is greater. Such is the case with the 10 and M VII.
Back to your original question - post offset. The trunion is attached to those posts. The truinion base provides the pivot points. The trunion needs a cross bar to connect the two posts and pivots. The cross bar introduces multiple interference possibilities. The bar cannot be in line with the pivot since the blade occupies that space. The bar must be far enough away to provide clearance for the arbor and blade guard. The bar must not interfere with the trunion segments. The bar must be further away to allow for the tilting table, but this is a catch 22. Too far and the tilt angle range is restricted.
Tis conjecture at this point, but I think the offset is to provide greater stability by virtue of the decreased 'arm' needed for a given bar/blade separation. The arm dimension is divided into two branches in opposite directions. Thus a 'T' shape rather than an 'L' shape.
The M VII due to it's greater tilt range needs more bar to blade clearance, so the blade is offset further from the pivot which needs to be aligned with the blade assuming under table symmetry.
As for the 10, I think lessons were learned from it. Also the blade was smaller and this stuff was less significant(sorta;)).
IIRC Dusty, the support tube drops down from a point on your outfeed extension and attaches to a 'tube pivot' at the bottom end of the table support post and is pivoted at both ends to allow for blade height variations. I assume you initially aligned that upper attachment point(with another pivot) with the posts(makes sense!!!....but. . .). Moving that point to align with the worktable pivot(vertically as well as horizontally) is crucial I think, but is only half way there. The bottom end of the telescoping tube is still at the table post location. Methinks the pivot for the telescoping tube needs to be offset to align vertically with the worktable pivots(maybe*).
However, your original placement of the outfeed table attachment point guaranteed no side to side movement only IF the attachment point was
also the same dimension below the table top as the main table pivot is from its top and in line with the worktable pivots. Methinks it was originally aligned with the posts and the height not considered(conjecture). i.e. the
three pivots must share a common axis. That leaves that pesky 5/8" bottom offset*. I believe it must be accommodated at the bottom of the post. An additional offset away from the post towards the 'rear' will not affect this.
The kickers are: The upper end of the tube must does not move relative to the bottom end of the post when either tilting or adjusting the worktable height.
* Get that and I think the position of the lower end of the tube becomes moot.
Get that done and the post/pivot offset becomes a mere curiosity rather than a 'problem'.
I think that will eliminate the stuff you are trying to get rid of(stuttering, tube readjustment when tilting). With the outfeed table tube attachment/pivot in line with the trunion pivots, the position of the upper end of the tube will only move when table height is changed, but will be the same amount as the main table. The tube bottom end moves with the post bottom which also moves the same amount as the worktable.
This is going to keep me up at nights. 
