Problem solving

It is wrong to try to reconcile if you are sure or even think that the compromise does not fit the author’s point of view. It is just babbling (or creating your own new method, which is legitimate in itself. But this is not the Maimonides’ method). Therefore, when the excuse is too narrow or too elaborate, it is unnecessary. The conclusion in such a situation is that the first or last person in question was probably wrong (in my opinion). If you prefer to be modest or polite, stay in the Tza.
But when the settlement is reasonable and has confirmations in other places, there is no reason not to do so. In this context, it is worth mentioning your common claim about the Rambam’s commentators, which I think is wrong. Even if the Rambam did not use Brisk’s terminology and way of thinking, this does not mean that the Brisk interpretation of his words is wrong. If he had known this terminology, perhaps he would have confirmed that this is what he actually meant. He may even have admitted that this toolbox would have helped him better formulate what he himself wanted to say. Like that midrash about Moses who sat at the end of twenty lines with the Rabbi and did not understand anything, until the LBM said and he was relieved. This of course does not mean that they are always right (they are not). But it does mean that they are not necessarily wrong. Each interpretation should be examined on its own merits.
There is an interesting debate regarding the truth of Brisk’s commentary on Maimonides (the same two opinions I mentioned – yours and mine), between Rabbi Yehoshua Hutner (founder of the Talmudic Encyclopedia) and the Relics of Ash.