Doesnt the drake stack work out as follows?:
Animate targeting WGD
WGD comes into play, ability triggers
Respond with Aether Vial, Gilded Drake comes into play
Drakes ability triggers, WGD and Drake switch sides
WGD removes all of your(current owner's) perminants from the game, is still enchanted with Animate

Which would leave the fish player with only a WGD in play, enchanted by your opponent's Animate, and the opponent with their feild + gilded drake.
Or did I miss something?

I recognize that at this point I am speaking from ignorance, as I have yet to test the deck, but my preliminary thoughts would lead me to question why I would run this over a more established version of combo.  Feel free to inform me of my naivete, but I begin by questioning whether or not this deck is more resilient to hate than Dragon, given that Dragon can run both duress(generally better than therapy unless you have a rector) and force of will.  Does this deck do something incredibly broken that I have yet to understand?

I would also question how much more resilient and efficient this deck is over a more ingratiated combo, like TPS.  I would assume that a similar threat density, with TPS's ability to counter the threats that need to be countered, and a better discard outlet would inevitably make TPS a superior deck.  I would be interested to see testing against other combo's with this deck, as it may yield some interesting results.

My final problem is the natural issue with Academy Rector, namely the fact that it IS a 4cc card that requires another card in the graveyard to win on the spot.  This issue may be shored up by your multiple outlets for ensuring that a Cabal Therapy IS in the yard, and by the fact that you might be able to remove mana Drains/Force of Wills from the picture to force the rector to resolve.  Hopefully testing reveals which scenario is the case.

Criticism's aside, there is some promise to this idea.  An attempt to change a semi-established combo like sensei into a (Possibly) more resilient combo should indeed be lauded.  Again, I would be quite interested to see what testing brings out of this deck, however my first assumption is that the rector seems to be a naturally inferior card.  Feel free to post your findings, I look forward to them.

Maybe I needed to be more clear here, though I do beleive I was clear enough.  Slave locking someone is a way to ensure inevitability NOT winning, and is really only important in matchups where you have absolutely no other way to win without complete control.

It is FAR easier to establish 2-3 turns of slaving in a Shay style CS deck than it is to estabilsh the full lock in the Intuition version, because of the fact that the deck requires far less of its key cards to come out (Intuition: Either Intuition(resolving), Welder, Slaver in Yard through Thirst or HC, or: Crucible, Citadel, Slaver in Yard or HC, Welder.  Shay: Some discard  mechanic or HC slaver, any artifact, Welder) and because one of its key cards(Pentavus) being the single best aggro hoser I personally have ever seen.  The fact is that when playing slaver, rushing towards the infinate lock is generally the wrong play in the Shay version, rather you set yourself up to kill somone over the turns you have them slaved.  In the intuition version you will rarely ever have that opporunity however, as a huge portion of your deck that would otherwise have been devoted to artifacts and win conditions is now devoted to draw.

I was attempting to make that clear, resiliency and threat density, are what make CS good, NOT an infinate lock(which is nice too).

I would like to point out here that what Rich failed to mention is that Scrying tends to be a bit better than Intuition/AK in the CS mirror because it can't be REB'd(Which at least 3 of which will be coming in on both ends of the game).  That said, my personal view on this argument is this, Control is a good matchup anyway, why then are you removing the single best card against aggro in the entire deck(Pentavus)?  To reduce the deck's abiltiy to withstand the harder matchups within the metagame(aggro) so that it will "win more" against the easy ones(control) is the hight of folly.

Side Note:
I also am growing a bit dissatisfied with people's classification of Slave locking someone as the deck's kill condition, it is not and cannot be.  What slaving does is provide you with a ridiculous tempo(and sometimes CA) swing, from which you can win the game.  

Edit: Cleaned up a bit