Well, we've got leading analytic people teaching Continental philosophy in seminars. (No, it's not 'timid.') We've got analytic people writing books about Continental philosophers.
Also analytic people deploying the ideas of Continental people in their research, both in books and journal articles. We've had leading analytic
philosophers quite deeply drenched in Continental people, like Roderick Chisholm. We've got Continental philosophers
teaching in most analytically oriented departments, and intense discussions between individual people in both traditions, e.g. Bert Dreyfus
and John Searle.  In a good number of cases, Continental philosophers chair analytically oriented departments. Continental ideas, like 'intentionality'
and 'Brentano's problem' and 'bad faith' and 'phenomenology' are part of mainstream analytic philosophy.
Continental people routinely read papers in mainstream philosophy conferences, both at the state and national levels. There have been
conferences that were designed to bring together both analytic and Continental philosophers to talk about common interests.
There are prestigious journals like 'Religious Studies' that routinely publish papers from people in both traditions.

What would you count as good evidence that there is no 'systematic divide,' and that these philosophers aren't operating in 'two different institutional worlds'?