Ven Nananada has an opinion. Bhikkhu Bodhi has an opinion. You have an opinion. I have an opinion. That's fine. I quite like Ven Nananda, but as far as I'm concerned he's one particular scholar monk with some interesting analysis. He doesn't "trump" Bhikkhu Bodhi, he just has a different view on some particular technicalities. As I've pointed out before, he doesn't shy away from the more "cosmological" language, including invoking Mara: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=9494&start=40#p146297
Personally I tend towards the line that I understand Bhikkhu Bodhi, Ven Thanissaro, and others to be expounding. (Based on reading their books/essays and listening to a number of their talks.) They discuss both "psychological" and "cosmological" approaches and the message is, to me, that both approaches are useful.
Of course, I do think that Ven Nananada (among others) makes some interesting and valid points, and his take on papanca has been the accepted interpretation for several decades.
So, in summary, I'm clinging to the opinion that clinging to, or trying to "prove", one approach over the other is not possible. Both, in the opinion I cling to, are useful.