true, as far as that goes.
however, you imply that the USC is an inevitable outgrowth of the DoI, and it is not.
The DoI, first and foremost, was justification for a war.
the USC is, first and foremost, the establishment of a federal republic on the ruins of a half-baked confederacy which was itself the first attempt to shape the peace after that war.
The constitutional convention was no placid circle of philosophers adducing from the DoI. The disagreements were often quite fundamental and heated enough to come to fisticuffs at least once IIRC.
Look, I know what you are trying to say, but I will not go there. We are a republic, ruled by law. The DoI has no legal weight. Thus, the glorious poetry of the DoI has no swaying legal authority, irrespective of its moral weight and probity.
OK, I'll agree that the DoI is not a statutory document and carries no legal authority in that respect. But I disagree that those "fundamental disagreements" were not part of a process of adducing the essence of the DoI into a framework of statutory law to be our Constitution and BoRs. The basic principles of the DoI are reflected throughout those two documents. The poetry of it may not be law itself but certainly its moral weight and probity still provide sound rhetorical guidance for understanding the genesis and purpose of the latter two.