It isn't the inverse of the Taylor method simply because there is no such thing as the Taylor method. It is a garbled bunch of nonsense with no definition. Taylor's method is "withdraw whatever you feel like". If the market goes down 20% how much do you reduce withdrawals? "Whatever you feel like." If the market goes up 20% how much do you increase withdrawals? "Whatever you feel like." The Taylor method is not a plan, it is mumbo jumbo. If he took the same approach to asset allocation -- "invest in whatever you want and adjust in up or down whenever you feel like it based on no analysis and just your gut feeling" -- he'd be laughed off of Bogleheads -- even though it has been amply demonstrated that withdrawal rates are vastly more important than asset allocation.
The actual Taylor method is: have so much money that the amount you withdraw is meaningless, that way you can adjust it up and down when you feel like it with no ill effects. After all, Taylor retired in the single best year to retire in US history. Based on the portfolio he had then, and the returns since then, he could withdraw the current equivalent of over $200,000 a year and still not run out.
Anyway, I can't really understand your chart. There is no "multiple" when talking about VPW, so I don't know what that 48 is or why you think the asset needed is higher than for "4% old CDW theory".
No, VPW does not start meaningfully higher. There is no actual difference between withdrawing $42,000 and $40,000 at age 65. (The numbers come from your screenshot.)VPW is start higher and drop back as needed and the Taylor method is start lower and increase if market increases. (My words, not his!)
The difference is in what happens when the market crashes by 50% -- as it did in 2008. How much do you reduce withdrawals under the Taylor method?
The difference is in what happens when the market is okay but inflation is 10% for 10 years -- as happened in the 1970s. The Taylor method says nothing about what happens in this situation.