True.
But, in the same vein, the representation can be symbolic, too. This may or may not be a big deal. 
I can be a very big deal indeed, depending on the power level of the saga. If allowed free reign, Potent Spells can easily boost all spell ability. "Add 1 magnitude across the board", no problem. 
Where does it say that Casting Items can be symbolic? I think you actually need the Casting Items present. They can be smaller than normal, but must actually be the things listed. So, you can have a small bellows, but they must actually be functional and push air.
Also, to transform them you'd need casting requisites. Clothing might transform with you, but a lantern or bellows wouldn't. You may be able to incorporate some into your talisman, but your talisman is the only thing that transforms with you, according to ArM5 rules.
That's why I suggest the minor focus: it makes meeting those requisites so much easier.
Potency sometimes makes sense, if the nature of the path is to manipulate things beyond oneself into harmony, as in the Path of the Body, which gives enhanced insight into medicine and healing, in the early stages.
This path is more self-focused in that. Refocusing the magic into the purpose of the path (elemental transformation) is far more in keeping with the flavour you're trying to go for.
The sacrifice of another focus, if it exists, could be part of the script as one of two optional +3's.
I'm fine with studying from Natural phenomenon as vis. Quests to find such phenomenon make for good stories. However, in studying from vis one generally needs to make notes and records as part of the learning process: its highly academic, even if studying in the lab is not necessary (which it isn't in ArM5, anyway, see the ArM5 secion on Vis.) This would require the magus to create wards to protect his study material, or create mental constructs for magical memory.
You did, by accident apparently, with your comment about his mistake. I now see that you meant to write "Techniques are not Forms" to imply that Techniques had accidentally been included as a subset of Forms, thus increasing the number of Forms being counted. What you actually wrote, "Forms are not Techniques," implies that had the statement been about 9 Techniques it would have been OK. I couldn't understand why you thought 9 Techniques would be OK. Now I understand your statement was backward, so now I know what you were actually trying to say.
Chris
One big advantage of Potent Magic over Minor Focus is that Potent Magic works better within a Path. What happens if you enter the beginning of a path with a different Focus? Do you get stuck partway? Does your Focus change? If it changes, what if yours had been a Major Focus? Were it not a path, but some random items to pick and choose amongst, no problem. Or, if it's Potent Magic, no problem. I had this show up on the Path of the Body myself, and I was quite happy it was Potent Magic, not a Minor Focus, that I picked up on that Path.
Chris
From HoH:MC, pg 6: "To cast a Potent spell, the caster must touch the specifi ed Casting Items. The items need not be large: they may be small and symbolic (for example, a shield-shaped brooch is still symbolically a shield). If the caster does not have the Casting Items available, the spell cannot be cast at all." So, from that, given that the broach is not functional as a shield, I'd say a bellows representation, to use your example, that isn't functional is fine, too.
Yes, that's how I feel, too.
incorrect, i meant specifically to write "Forms are not Techniques" as my best guess was that he indeed had accidentally messed up either writing it or conceptually and either added Techs to Forms or done what he did do, misname the total. I meant it as written as, Techs are not included with Forms. And as a pointer to where i guessed he "whoopsied".
It can be read as you say above, but that doesnt make the phrasing wrong in itself as it can be interpreted in both directions. And the phrasing was a result of not actually knowing the intention of the original post, if it was a mistake or if it was something else.
Had i written Techs are not Forms, i would potentially have disassociated my text with his by moving emphasis away from the word HE used. As it was possible that neither word was the one that was originally intended, that would have been completely wrong.
To write that "Techniques are not included with Forms" you are saying Techniques are not a subset of Forms and it is written "Techniques are not Forms." For example, cats are animals, while daffodils are not animals. That means cats are a subset of animals, while daffodils are not a subset of animals. You do not say these as "animals are cats" and "animals are not daffodils." So you meant it as "Techniques are not Forms" if you actually meant "Techs are not included with Forms." Now you should understand why I was confused.
Chris
I love the idea.
Also with the elements, Empedocles also proposed that "love" and "strife" were key ways in the use of the elements. I'd want to figure out a way to incorporate them somehow.