NonPolitical: First off, thanks for not answering me directly, it speaks volumes…
Second of all, I understand perfectly the premise, but again both of you seem to miss the point. The term invented in this discussion has two meanings, 1) a new idea or concept, one that is not based on any earlier idea, 2) an addition and/or improvement to an earlier concept. However the Gr”a understood Chassidus, whether as an entirely new movement or an addition to the Arizal, he was against it, and further, there are no Chassidic concepts in his works whatsoever, nor are there any interpretations of the Torah and Chazal that parallel Chassidic ones.
However, with the NH one encounters a completely different story. Not only does the NH quote extensively from Chassidic sources, at times he even deviates from his Rebbe the Gr”a in the favor of Chassidic interpretations, case in point Tzimzum. In fact the only place that the NH does not agree with Chassidus is in Shaar 4, (and the Yesodai Ha’Avodah was written in response to it). In other words, however R’ Chaim understood Chassidus, either as entirely new movement or as an addition, he actually had no issues with it whatsoever other than one aspect, (which was not the driving factor of the Gr”as’ cherem).
To sum this up for those that need Cliff Notes, However the Gr’a viewed Chassus he had an issue with all the core tenets, whereas R’ Chaim his talmud had only one issue with it.
Again, study the relevant texts before commenting.