I am self-studying Griffiths's Introduction to Electrodynamics (4th edition) and all has been smooth sailing except for section 4.2.3 in which Griffiths argues for why we can compute (at least at the elementary level of classical electrodynamics that I am currently studying) the field due to a polarized dielectric chunk of material by simply adding up the potential (or field) due to each tiny volume element times the polarization per unit volume $\mathbf{P}$, treating each volume element as containing a perfect dipole. I have attached the page and a half of the chapter here, as well as the Eq. 4.8 alluded to there. I'll explain what I understand and where I lose track of his argument, and I'm hoping someone can help me sort things out.
After a very gentle qualitative intro, Griffiths essentially says that we are going to define the macroscopic field $\mathbf{E(r)}$ at the point $\mathbf{r}$ in space as the average electric field over a sphere of radius a "thousand times the size of a molecule" about the point $\mathbf{r}$, which I'll call $V$. Fine, this is just a definition, and he says that analogous definitions using ellipsoids etc. yield the same answer, which I'm willing to accept. Now by superposition, the average field on $V$ can be found as the average field due to charges inside and outside of the sphere. With (4.17), he gives the average potential over $V$ due to all charges (dipoles) outside of $V$, and with (4.18) he gives the average field inside $V$ due to the charges inside $V$. I'm still following up to here, but now he loses me. He says that what is left out of the integral "corresponds" to the field at the centre of a uniformly polarized sphere, but what does this correspondence mean? I see how the integral in (4.17) doesn't include $V$, but why does that mean that $\mathbf{E}_{in}$ adds back what is missing (what does it even mean for an average field to source potential? We can speak of charge sourcing potential, or taking a line integral of a field giving a potential, but this is just some field value?).
The best I can come up with is to say that if you take (4.19), split the integral out into $V$ and outside $V$, and then apply the (negative) gradient to the integral, one should be able to show that $\mathbf{E}_{in}$ is recovered for the former term, and so that would seem to imply that our coarse graining calculation does indeed give the correct macroscopic field as we have defined it (but I couldn't see how to DO this derivative, so I couldn't prove it).
I've tried to look at other resources on this (eg. Zangwill), but none were digestible for me unfortunately.
Please let me know if this is unclear, and I can try to rephrase. But essentially I'm hoping someone can, in detail, walk me through Griffiths's arguments.
Eq 4.8 (note that Griffiths's script vector r equals $\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{r'}$, and hats have their usual unit vector meaning):
Griffiths text: