Very precise, colmena. I like that. Perhaps we all might reach compromise by agreeing that about everything in Orson Welles' work was "stylized," and that inimitable stylization always identified the "Wellesian."
Welles throughout his career attempted to be accepted as a comic actor, even a comedian. Aside from his glorious turn as Falstaff, he never was very good at at it. He had himself booked onto the Jack Benny Program on Radio, for instance, and even took over for Benny, when the master comedian was ill. In his later career, he hung out and traded quips with the like of Dean Martin and his companions. But his attempts at being a formal comic were often hampered by a slight stiffness in his delivery, a difficulty in connecting. It was a failing, reading between the lines, that he was most aware of.
Aside from one or two "Mercury Theater on the Air Shows" or "Campbell Playhouses," he was most effective in the little introductions or green room banter on or after his radio performances. The ad libs allowed his great affection for people he admired to bubble out, seemingly naturally.
By your definitions, examples, and descriptions of the term, colmena, I would say that the last thing Orson Welles wanted to be was camp -- a stylist, a conscious artist, yes. A creator of camp, no. What Welles' was overwhelmingly was an ironist. All of his best work turned on irony. In MR. ARKADIN, what makes you wonder about the "comedic" may be that most serious form of humor: irony. Every character in the film turns out to have been working against his or her best interests.
Certainly, a figure like Gregorie Arkadin, who is successfully attempting to take over the burgeoning Post War arms trade, the international defense cartels, and the governments that are increasingly controlled by them following World War II -- having everything almost within his grasp, is not intended by Welles as a figure of fun. At heart, Welles is trying to find some humanity in Arkadin, and he finds it in the man's daughter. It is a very timely, serious subject, newly evident in the dark figures (now in America, too), the 1% who would sacrifice "the little people" for "excess profits." We have not found much humanity in them . . . yet.
Orson Welles always harked back to a classical age, and obviously, he did think much of where we were in 1955, less, hope against hope, of where we were going.