I agree with the earth-bound perspective, but this view requires more than that. It presumes, at least, (1) concordism, (2) seeing v. 1 as a creative act prior to the 6 Days, and (3) a resumptive understanding of vv. 16-17 (“and God made the two lights…”) (or one could follow Walton’s functional view…but that would undermine everything else you’re proposing). I reject all these on exegetical and hermeneutical grounds. But, I admit, they’re not impossible and each enjoys traditional and scholarly support.
I’ve recently begun using Plinko (from The Price is Right) as an illustration for biblical interpretation. As the disk drops it hits several spokes, each of which alters the direction and future potential options. Likewise, as we read the text, we are faced with a series of questions/options, not all simultaneous. So, one decision (however confident) opens and closes options on other questions. This is why good and godly people disagree…and how there can be several viable options. I certainly believe you are working faithfully in your model. As I stated elsewhere, while I do seek the truth as best I can, much of my energy is understanding the options (big and small) and trying to decide where options fit on a probability scale and overall faithfulness to the biblical vision and orthodox Christianity. I admit my personal opinions are provisional and open to correction (i.e., I’m not 100% confident on each decision, and sometimes it’s closer to 60/40 or even 50/50).