Tarkovsky and editing and rythm

So I am back with Sculpting in Time, thinking back to the same question: how do I shoot this thing?
I am looking to Tarkovsky to articulate some things I felt or thought. More develop than articulate.
First a rejection of Eisenstein and montage. He connects this with his rejection of the author's presence in the work.

When in October [Eisenstein] juxtaposes a balalaika with Kerensky, his method has become his aim...The construction of the image becomes an end in itself, and the author proceeds to make a total onslaught on the audience, imposing his own attitude to what is happening.

He would reject the idea of montage - that juxtaposition of two ideas creates a third - because the result is an idea. The authors.
Furthermore, montage suggests that the editor creates the rythm by this juxtaposition.
Tarkovsky would argue that the rythm exists within the shot itself:

Although the assembly of the shots is responsible for the structure of the film, it does not, as it is generally assumed, create its rhythm.
The distinctive time running through the shots makes the rhythm of the picture; and rhythm is determined not by the length of the edited pieces, but the pressure of the time that runs through them. Editing cannot determine rythm (in this respect it can only be a feature of style); indeed, time courses through the picture despite editing rather than because of it. The course of time, recorded in the frame, is what the director has to catch in the pieces laid out on the editing table.

So I would reject the conventions. Master shot, medium two-shot, close-up. These always seemed false to me, someone else's solution to someone else's problem.
I will struggle to find my own method.

One-part version: just on the wrong side?

A friend of mine read the one-part version and said: I don't buy it.
Well, I don't buy it either. I wonder if part of my struggle in choosing is that I am unconvinced by this version.
And now, looking back on that scene in Mirror, I wonder if the flaw in the story is that we are witness to Sophie living that other life. Perhaps it would be better if, like Ignat, we are only aware of it from this side?
(This does mean that we are not witness to any less detail about this other life, only that we see from Sophie on this side.)