OK I have read the references which you have provided and I don’t see anything in them that I find objectionable or a consensus I am running afoul of. The third link in particular listed four options, three of which gave plenty of room for the way I am looking at things IMHO, and ended by saying there was no consensus on which of these ways is correct and so one should not be dogmatic about any of these methods. That sounds good to me.
But it seems to me that I am not violating authorial intent given who I understand the authors to be- which is who the text claims that they are per the tablet theory. This makes the first account, that of the Heavens and the Earth, in particular mystical and the authorial intent something beyond the normal rules of what I would call (from the last link you shared) the “Kaiser School” of interpretation. I think I even pay respect to his school, even though I am more keen on the other three. Later on, in the flood account, grasping that it is Shem, Ham and Japheth talking and not God is one of the keys to grasping that chapter seven is not describing a global flood.