I used to believe in the trilogy theory, but it's really crap. It's like reading a horoscope and finding the reasons that it applies to you.
Every single album has clues to the next album. There is no radical, "out of the blue" departure---even from R&H to AB. The big clues to AB were God Part II and the entire Lovetown tour. The rock got harder; the only thing that was different was the addition of various effects and a vocoder. People erroneously think that there was a big jump between JT and AB because they forget about R&H and Lovetown. Looking back, the biggest jump is probably War to UF, but even that had some foreshadowing. NYD, to me, is closer to Pride than it is most songs on Boy or October. Surrender and 40 are just an Eno treatment away from fitting on UF. ATYCLB is foreshadowed by IGWSHA, perhaps even WUDM, IYWTVD, and maybe even Playboy Mansion & Miami in terms of lyrical style (think: New York).
There are no massive jumps that come without warning. The issue is that the warning goes unrecognized until the next album is made.
I still believe in the theory. The albums have foreshadowing in the future, but it still works.
War fits after Boy and October, it's just a more fleshed out sound. Hint to UF: Drowning man.
UF started - lyrically - their obsession with America, when they developed that sound they got JT and then Rattle and Hum that peaked the "American trilogy". God part II being the hint to AB.
AB started the Euro/electronica period that continued with Zooropa and Pop. IGWSHA and SATS being hints to the straighworward songwriting on
ATYCLB which started more accessible "pop trilogy". Elements of U2's past musically enter each of these albums. It was a little of it in ATYCLB but more in HTDAAB (more 80's) and NLOTH (which is like UF through a 90's filter but with the songwriting skills of the last two albums).
NLOTH isn't the reboot of U2 the way UF, AB and ATYCLB were. We're not at the U2 4.0 yet.