Say person A is knew person B is looking for a thing Y. Person A intends to give person B the thing Y and left it in a place X. Person B went to place X and saw thing Y and took thing Y. In this instance, is there no offering of thing Y by person A to person B? Is there no receiving of thing Y by person B from person A?
Your example is irrelevant to empowerments and transmissions.
My post is not meant to be an example but an attempt to strip down the argument to the essentials to see where, if any, the problem of any definition of transmission lies.
Back to my "example": If it is agreed that there is a giving by A and a receiving by B, then it that a "transmission"?
If you impose the condition that the teacher must be present for the transmission to take place, then what you are essentially saying is that "thing Y" is something that can only be transmitted personally by the teacher. If so, then what is this "thing Y" that is being "transmitted" in an empowerment? Certainly not the words of the vajra master during an empowerment because words can be transmitted via a recorder too. If you say it is to establish a "connection", then reasons should be provided as to why the "connection" cannot be established via a third object like a recorder.