Hi Adam,
No ladder needed -- it was a small hole. . .
Now you've got me thinking -- as much as that's possible, at least!
I didn't realize that the extent of the TTL support was different between the D and DS, nor that the mirror (and I have to assume lightbox) were also different between the two bodies. It could be that the dimensional differences cause the performance difference, and they found that a choice to scale the mirror and lightbox to APS-C also made continued TTL support inconsistent with their quality baseline. . .
. . .or (and here's where the marketing dept "conspiracy theories" kick in, something that I hadn't really taken seriously before, BTW) . . . they might have decided that their newish P-TTL flash wasn't selling at a high enough ratio to new DSLR bodies once the DS took off and sold in reasonable numbers. Backwards compatibility, no matter how desirable it is to consumers, has to hurt their bottom line, and virtually forcing an upgrade in flash units would probably be their least resisted first step in pulling back from their corporate philosophy of providing the highest level of backward compatibility since extensive/advanced external flash users are a relative minority, and citing "performance issues" would probably satisfy most of the grumblers.
Deleting the onboard flash's ability to control wireless TTL flash after the D would also fit into this scenario (with cost being the primary explanation -- and now you could sell twice as many flashes to those who desired this advanced feature). Choosing to not update the 360 with a swivel head (and the introduction of a more professionally featured unit with a swivel head) also slides in here -- previously, the AF280T filled a midgrade unit slot with a tilt and swivel head -- the AF400T, AF400 FTZ and AF500 FTZ added power and capability. Performance and cost issues could be used to explain each of the moves they make, and these would probably be accepted by consumers after some initial grumbling. I've never really accepted interference with the SR system as a viable explanation for not including onboard flash control for wireless TTL in the K10, and they've left themselves an out with the rumor of being able to add this with a firmware fix if the "work out the bugs".
DL and K100/110 sales would establish an "new" (and much larger) user base which is already used to not having TTL compatibility, and even the DS user base would see the advantages the greater range of P-TTL over the crippled TTL compatibility, and those who want better flash performance would bite the bullet and go ahead with a P-TTL flash (or two) -- especially if their new upgrade path (K10) reinforces this by not including TTL support for the aforementioned "quality issues", and wireless TTL control from the onboard flash (I did, and bought an AF540 to augment my AF360).
Conspiracy theories are so much fun. . .
I'll be looking at the move towards SSM lenses with a more jaundiced eye in the nest few years, especially after the Hoya thing introduces new potential influences to Pentax's managerial philosophy. . .
Scott