I think, sometimes, the over-wrought and complicated explanation may be worthwhile pursuing.
Since you cited the Sabba Sutta, I would mention the problem a "common sense" reading would present when applied to the Kaccanagota Sutta SN 12.15 which discusses the propositions "The All exists" and "The All does not exist". Most of us equate the All (sabba) in the Sabba Sutta, with the Sabba in the Kaccanagota Sutta.
In fact, if you look at the expanded version of SN 12.15 to be found in the Lokatiya Sutta, SN 12.48, the context reveals very clearly that the Buddha was not criticising ontological views about the bases, the indriyas etc, but was attacking the 2 competing theries of Causation that pre-dated Him. This would be the Vedic idea of self-causation and the wanderers' concept of other-causation. SN 12.48 expands the discussion to capture the ideas of Monism and Pluralism expounded by the rival schools to account for these 2 models of causation.
On this, Kalupahana's "Causality - the Central Philosophy of Buddhism" would be a worthwhile read to contextualise the Buddha's critique of "Sabba". Kalupahana gives a stupendously wide survey of the attested Causation theories recorded in the Nikayas, Agamas as well as Jain literature to furnish the backdrop for the pre-Buddhist conception of the All. I think SN 35.23 is the Buddha's re-working of the All theories that pre-dated Him, so that He could invest Sabba with its Buddhist flavour.
So, should we persist with a common sense application of SN 12.48, based on the understanding that the Sabba in SN.35.23 = the Sabba in SN 12.48, and thereby end up with non-common sense denials about the reality of our senses and sense data?