Honestly, if you're waiting for someone to endorse your notational choices, I don't think you're going to find it, at least, not within the circle of those who are conscientious of such things. I'm sure there's plenty here that are of a mindset that would acquiesce what you've presented for the sake of practicality, for the sake of NSM... and it is to those to whom I say go ahead and accept Olimar's sheet. Even after enduring criticism, he went further beyond and added precise time signatures to represent metric accents, painstakingly realigned note stems, and much more. Obviously the NSM standard has been met and exceeded manifold.
And yet... a polished terd is still a terd. But Ben isn't that a subjective judgement, based solely on personal aesthetics? Absolutely. However, if we can't agree on something as basic as recognizing that this is a highly functional, highly precise, highly academically informed piece of shit, then I'm afraid we have very little room to discuss much else in the realm of engraving, at least, as far as this composition is concerned.
You don't have to have 20/20 vision, years of experience as a player/composer/arranger/conductor, or collegiate training to notice the cramped the horizontal spacing that plagues this sheet. You don't have to have stacks of academic sources to see the un-intuitiveness of cross-staff backwards noteheads (as the definition of intuitive would dictate). Oh, but we're artists, so we can say that cramped spacing represents the claustrophobic mood of the piece, that it's some sort of daring, avant-garde non-traditional evolution of notation. No, it's not. It's just ugly.
Pushing the bounds of notation and conforming with public reception is always a balancing act. Sometimes you have to concede, sometimes you got to be a trailblazer, and sometimes (and by this I mean all the time) you have to just use common sense.