I tried giving my explanation 3 posts up. As I said, opinions will differ, and much will depend also on how one understands vipassati. Is it mere "clearly seeing" or is it the ruminative analysis that leads to the mere "clearly seeing"? I get the sense from your post -
that you're equating the past participle viditā with the vipassanā.Note that it says "Known to him they arose, known to him they remained, known to him they subsided" and this I think is key. It says that these factors arose known to him. This knowing must have occurred contemporaneously with the arising, remaining, and subsiding, ...
Since I take vipassanā to be the outcome of reflection and analysis, I won't equate it with the vindati verb (present tense of viditā), as vindati can easily encompass those kinds of bare and non-verbal awareness. If I were to accept that viditā were an analytical activity, I cannot reconcile it with the absence of vitakka-vicāra in the series of 9 attainments except for the 1st jhana.