I'm not sure how the disodium version of EDTA is superior, other than it has 2 sodium versus 4 sodium. Using equimolar amounts of each substance should yield similar results.
You have a point concerning the FAO versus FO: my comment was based on my experience with New Chrysotypes which also use FAO. Mike Ware notes in the chrysotype instructions on his webpage
http://www.mikeware.co.uk/mikeware/New_Chrysotype_Process.html
that disodium EDTA, not tetrasodium EDTA should be used in the first (developing) bath, because the tetrasodium version is alkaline (It is used for the further clearing baths. I have both varieties; it is true, they have a different ph. What is more, I have old chrysotype prints which I made long before Mike placed his instructions on his webpage, developed in tetrasodium EDTA, and I have noticed a stain on two of them - which has appeared only after years!
But FAO or FO, iron stain seems to me iron stain, and as far as I know, it is better to develop and clear kallitypes with acidic baths. It might not matter using tetrasodium EDTA if the developer was slightly acidic, but then it sometimes might, perhaps depending also on the paper, and on how much is left to clear. So, while I am not certain, I think it is better to be on the safe side. By the way, your point about the hardening action of acids seems to me not relevant here: shouldn't sizing agents in a paper all be hardened already?