The interpretive dispute between Maimonides and Ramban regarding the qualities of the sermon

peace,
First, thank you very much for all the lessons, the website, and the extensive material – thank you very much!
Now, regarding the series of lessons on the virtues of sermons and the controversy between Maimonides and the Ramban, I wanted to ask: You explained that Maimonides and the Ramban differ from an interpretive perspective. For Maimonides, sermons are not detail but expansion, while for the Ramban, sermons are detail.
My question – and this is why? Do you think there is a point-by-point disagreement here or a fundamental thought in hermeneutics?
And so, we can say that the Rambam simply did not see in detail how the sermons are detailed from the Scriptures, and therefore he was forced to say that they are an expansion. And perhaps according to this, we can say that this is itself a disagreement between Rabbi Shimon Ha-Amsoni and Rabbi Akiva. And so, Rabbi Shimon did not see how it could be said that fear of the Torah scholars is detailed from the fear of God, but Rabbi Akiva renewed that this detail is not correct – but rather the expansion is perhaps more reasonable in this matter (and then Rabbi Shimon may not agree, according to him, that the sermons are nothing more than a detail).
Or one could say that in general the Maimonides perceives that the text has only one interpretation. No detail is possible. But if so, this itself requires explanation – why assume this? Does it have to do with Occam's razor? In other words, as long as nothing else is proven, is it better to say that the text has one interpretation?
What do you think about that?
Again, thank you very much!